BANDAK v. THE ELI LILLY AND COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN et al, No. 1:2006cv01622 - Document 114 (S.D. Ind. 2009)

Court Description: CLOSED JUDGMENT - Pursuant to the Court's Order dated 2/11/2009, on Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and for Attorneys' Fees, judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on Plaintiff's cla ims under § 1132(a)(1)(B) in the amount of $100,222.86, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,637.69. In addition, Defendants are hereby ENJOINED from reducing Plaintiff's future benefits under the Lilly Plan by amounts pa id to Plaintiff from his UK Pension Plan. Finally, judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants for Plaintiff's attorneys fees incurred in this matter in the amount of $89,612.00. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 2/11/2009.(TRG)

Download PDF
BANDAK v. THE ELI LILLY AND COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN et al Doc. 114 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION STEPHEN I. BANDAK, Plaintiff, vs. THE ELI LILLY AND COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN, and THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF THE ELI LILLY AND COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:06-cv-1622-LJM-JMS ENTRY OF JUDGMENT Through an Order dated September 8, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff’s, Stephen I. Bandak (“Plaintiff”), Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Defendants’, the Eli Lilly and Company Retirement Plan and the Employee Benefits Committee of the Eli Lilly and Company Retirement Plan (collectively, “Defendants”), Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court concluded that Defendants wrongfully offset Plaintiff’s retirement benefits in violation of the Employment Retirement Insurance Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated February 11, 2009, on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and for Attorneys’ Fees, judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims under § 1132(a)(1)(B) in the amount of $100,222.86, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,637.69. In addition, Defendants are hereby ENJOINED from reducing Plaintiff’s future benefits under the Lilly Plan by amounts paid to Plaintiff from his UK Pension Plan. Finally, judgment is hereby Dockets.Justia.com ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants for Plaintiff's attorneys fees incurred in this matter in the amount of $89,612.00. DATED this 11th day of February, 2009. ________________________________ LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE United States District Court United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Southern District of Indiana LAURA A. BRIGGS, CLERK United States District Court Laura A. Briggs, Clerk Southern District of Indiana BY: __________________________________ By: Deputy Clerk, Deputy Clerk U. S. District Court Distributed to: Andrew W. Hull HOOVER HULL LLP awhull@hooverhull.com Laurie E. Martin HOOVER HULL LLP lmartin@hooverhull.com John W. Purcell BAKER & DANIELS LLP john.purcell@bakerd.com Paul A. Wolfla BAKER & DANIELS LLP paul.wolfla@bakerd.com 2

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.