BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    Live Online with Live Q&A

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    ERISA

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Tuesday, July 8, 2025

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE webinar will provide ERISA counsel and plan fiduciaries an in-depth analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University and other recent cases and their impact on ERISA prohibited transaction claims. The panel will discuss recent prohibited transaction cases and SCOTUS' analysis in coming to their ruling on pleading standards for such claims. The panel will also discuss key provisions under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, applicable rules and procedures for statutory, class, and individual exemptions, fiduciary liability, and other key issues for obtaining prohibited transaction exemptions under ERISA.

Faculty

David C. Olstein
Partner
Hogan Lovells

Mr. Olstein’s practice focuses on the fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA and the prohibited transaction excise tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. He has an extensive background advising financial institutions, plan sponsors, and investment committees on ERISA matters, including compliance with ERISA’s fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction rules, in connection with the investment of pension plan assets. Mr. Olstein regularly advises fund sponsors on the application of ERISA’s “plan asset” rules as they relate to the establishment and operation of private investment funds. From representing issuers and underwriters in connection with marketing securities to investors, to advising plan sponsors and independent fiduciaries in connection with the selection of annuity providers, he offers substantial experience at the intersection of ERISA and fiduciary responsibility. Mr. Olstein is an active member of the American Bar Association’s Section of Taxation and the New York City Bar Associati

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Cunningham v. Cornell University is expected to have a significant impact on pleading standards for ERISA claims, rule implementation, and litigation. Attorneys assisting clients with ERISA, employee benefits, and fiduciary matters must understand the implications of this ruling and how their clients may be affected.

On Apr. 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case to resolve the circuit court split on the pleading standards for prohibited transaction claims under ERISA. The Court's ruling has lowered the pleading standards for ERISA claims, allowing plaintiffs to pursue prohibited transaction claims without addressing the statutory exemptions that may defeat such claims. This will cause a significant increase in meritless prohibited transaction claims and litigation costs for plan sponsors and fiduciaries.

Listen as our expert panel guides practitioners through the recent Cunningham v. Cornell University ruling and discusses the impact on ERISA claims. The panel will also discuss key provisions under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, applicable rules and procedures for statutory, class, and individual exemptions, fiduciary liability, and other key issues for obtaining prohibited transactions exemptions under ERISA.

Outline

I. Overview of ERISA prohibited transaction rules

II. Cunningham v. Cornell University

III. Regulatory challenges and litigation

IV. Mitigating the effects of Cunningham v. Cornell University

V. Practitioner takeaways

Benefits

The panel will review these and other important issues:

  • How will Cunningham v. Cornell University impact ERISA claims?
  • What effect will the SCOTUS ruling have on litigation pleading standards and tactics?
  • How may the decision affect regulatory rulemaking?
  • What is the potential impact of the ruling on clients?