Clark v. Feder Semo and Bard, P.C., 895 F. Supp. 2d 7

ERISA action by Denise Clark against Feder Semo & Bard, P.C., the Plan, and two Plan fiduciaries after a six-day bench trial on remaining claims.
Clark alleged improper grouping under the Plan, failure to disclose risk of loss and lack of PBGC insurance in the SPD, and unreasonable actuarial assumptions (8% interest) causing underfunding.
The Firm dissolved in 2005; Plan termination led to pro rata lump-sum distributions funded only to Plan assets; Clark’s benefits were reduced relative to potential higher Group B allocations.
A 2003 restatement clarified groupings but did not retroactively alter Clark’s prior year allocations; Bard and Semo reviewed Clark’s appeal with outside input and ultimately denied her request for higher accruals.
The court applied the Firestone deferential standard to fiduciary duty claims and ultimately ruled for defendants on all remaining claims.
The decision reflects analysis of Plan documents, amendments, funding decisions, and evidentiary record surrounding Clark’s appeal and Plan termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark was improperly grouped under the Plan.	Clark argues she should have been in Group B (20%) for 2000–2002.	Semo and Bard reasonably determined she belonged to Group C (10%).	No breach; grouping was reasonable under the ambiguous Plan.
Whether the SPD violated ERISA disclosure requirements.	SPD failed to clearly identify risk of loss and PBGC insurance status.	SPD disclosures were not meaningfully misleading and harm to Clark was not shown.	No actionable harm; SPD deficiencies did not cause cognizable harm.
Whether the 8% interest rate assumption breached fiduciary duties.	8% was unreasonable; it underfunded the Plan and harmed participants.	8% was within the range of reasonableness given historical investments.	No breach; rate reasonable in aggregate and Plan termination was unforeseen.

Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996) (established ERISA § 502(a)(3) as a fiduciary-duty remedy framework)
Cigna Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1801 (2011) (harm required for equitable relief under § 1132(a)(3) and impact of SPDs)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) (deferential review when plan grants discretionary authority to determine benefits)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008) (conflict of interest weighed as a factor in abuse-of-discretion review)
Hall v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 559 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2008) (requires final, fully considered explanation for plan action; limits reliance on post hoc evidence)