Pension Litigation

Mr. Stris litigates pension disputes throughout the country. He is also retained by plan sponsors and their executives to provide advice on regulatory compliance and litigation avoidance. For example:

Frommert v. Conkright [Read more here]
For a decade, Mr. Stris served as co-lead counsel for dozens of pensioners in this case against the Xerox pension plan. Xerox was ordered to pay—and paid—more than $22 million to plaintiffs. This epic dispute resulted in a published opinion by the U.S Supreme Court in 2010 (Supreme Court Opinion | Argument Audio) and three published opinions by the Second Circuit, including major victories for our clients in 2013 (Second Circuit Opinion | Argument Audio) and in 2016 ($4.9 Million Fee Order).

Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 140 S.Ct. 1615 (2020)
Mr. Stris and colleagues persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court (Petition) to address whether participants in a defined benefit pension plan had Article III standing to seek restoration of $700 million in losses to their plan.  After briefing  (Merits Brief | Merits Reply) and argument (Argument Audio), the Court rejected our position in a 5-4 decision (Opinion).

Rozo v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 949 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 2020)
Mr. Stris persuaded the Eighth Circuit to reverse a grant of summary judgment in a 9-figure certified class action over guaranteed investment contracts sold to ERISA-governed pension plans. (Brief | Reply | Argument Audio | Opinion)

Allen v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan [Read more here]
Mr. Stris and colleagues obtained a $23.8 million settlement (Order and Judgment | Fee Motion) in this complex pension class action in Arizona federal court.

LaRue v. DeWolff Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (2008)
Mr. Stris and colleagues persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court (Petition) to hear this landmark case about the rights of 401(k) account holders. After successful briefing (Our Opening Brief) and argument (Audio), we obtained (Supreme Court Opinion) what the New York Times described as “one of the most important rulings in years on the meaning of the federal pension law . . . .”