|
 |
PREVIOUS UPDATES:
On September 7, 2010, the Tenth Circuit issued a decision which held that Solvay did not adequately disclose the plan’s changes in early retirement benefits in an ERISA-required “Section 204(h) notice” or “summary of material modification.” The court denied Plaintiffs’ appeal of the other ERISA and ADEA claims. The case has been remanded for further proceedings in the district court to determine whether Solvay’s disclosure violation was “egregious.” Plaintiffs will conduct additional discovery and a trial is expected to occur next summer.
On August 27, 2009, the District Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend its decision granting Solvay’s summary judgment motion and dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 1, 2009. On November 6, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their brief in support of the appeal and Solvay filed an opposition on December 15, 2009. The oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for Tuesday, March 9, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom III of the Byron White U.S. Courthouse, located at 1823 Stout Street, Denver, CO 80257.
IMPORTANT: The age discrimination lawsuit about Solvay’s conversion to a “cash balance” pension formula was scheduled for a jury trial beginning August 24, 2009 in Cheyenne, Wyoming. This would have been the first class action involving age discrimination in the conversion of a pension plan to a cash balance formula to be tried before a jury in the United States. Unfortunately, the day before pretrial memos were due and one week before the final pretrial conference, the judge granted Solvay’s summary judgment motion to dismiss all of our claims--under both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). See a copy of the Court’s decision.
The ADEA claims focus on the transition to the cash balance formula, including that Solvay designed the changes so there would be years of “wear-away” for employees in their 40’s and 50’s in which the retirement benefits payable at age 55 and older were not increasing at all. The ERISA claims focused on whether Solvay’s brochures and other written materials understandably and honestly explained how steeply the cash balance changes were going to reduce future retirement benefits.
Plaintiffs strongly disagree with the Court’s decision and have filed a motion to alter or amend the summary judgment that is pending before the Court. If the motion is denied, we will appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado.
See the expert actuarial report and the expert statistical report of the Plaintiffs’ actuarial and statistical experts dated March 17 and 31, 2009 and the rebuttal reports dated April 30, 2009 that the Plaintiffs’ actuarial and statistical experts prepared in response to the reports by Solvay’s experts. The expert reports show how Solvay’s cash balance design created periods of “wear-away” during which older employees do not earn any additional retirement benefits. The expert reports also analyze Solvay’s communications about the cash balance plan.
Notices of the age discrimination lawsuit and
consent forms were mailed on March 10, 2008 and June 19, 2008.
The second mailing went to approximately 950 current and former
employees of Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Solvay Solexis, and Solvay
Draka who were not included in the initial mailing.
Please read
the Notice
of Age Discrimination Lawsuit Concerning Benefits Under the
Solvay America Companies Pension Plan After 2005 for more
information.
To join the class, you must sign and return the Consent
Form before June 9, 2008 or before September 17, 2008 if you
are a current or former employee of Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Solexis
or Draka. Note: Please do not submit
the form posted on this website if you already received the Consent
Form in the mail. To confirm whether we received your Consent Form, please call
(toll free) 1-866-591-7255.
The Solvay case centers on the conversion of the Solvay America Companies
Pension Plan to a “cash balance plan,” which significantly
reduced future retirement benefits for employees. In the lawsuit,
the plaintiffs argue that the pension plan conversion is inconsistent
with statutory requirements and disclosure rules under ERISA and the
ADEA.
Below is the class definition for this lawsuit:
The class definition adopted by the District Court covers any and all persons
who:
- Are
current or former employees of subsidiaries of Solvay America, Inc.,
- Were
age 40 or more as of February 8, 2008; and
- Participated in the Solvay
America Companies Pension Plan before January 1, 2005, and have been
subject to the “Retirement Account
Balance Formula” on or after
January 1, 2005.
Attorneys handling the class action are:
- Stephen R. Bruce, Washington,
D.C., lead counsel
- Richard Honaker, Rock Springs,
WY
|
|
|
