Tussey v. ABB, Inc., No. 15-2792 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, a class of employees who participated in ABB's retirement plans, filed suit alleging that ABB and its fiduciaries managed the plans for their own benefit, rather than for the participants. In an earlier appeal, the court directed the district court to "reevaluate" how the participants might have been injured if the ABB fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., when they changed the investment options for the plans. The district court misunderstood the court's direction for a definitive ruling on how to measure plan losses and thus entered judgment for the ABB fiduciaries even though the district court found that they breached their duties. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment on that claim and remanded for further consideration regarding whether the participants can prove losses to the plans. The court also vacated and remanded the district court's award of attorney fees because the court reopened one of the participant's substantive claims.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil case - ERISA. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Tussey v. ABB, Inc. 746 F.3d 327 (8th Cir. 2014). In that opinion, this court directed the district court to "reevaluate" how participants in the retirement plan might have been injured if the ABB fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Act when they changed the investment options for the plans; on remand, the district court apparently mistook these directions for a definitive ruling on how to measure plan losses, and as a result entered judgment in favor of ABB despite finding they did breach their duties; therefore, the judgment on that claim is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further consideration regarding whether the participants can prove losses to the plans; because this court reopens one of the participants' substantive claims, the district court's award of attorneys' fees is also vacated and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.