Frommert v. Conkright, 738 F.3d 522

This is Xerox retirement plan ERISA litigation, third decision in the Frommert line, involving the plan's floor-offset structure (RIGP, CBRA, TRA).
The plan used a phantom account offset to account for prior lump-sum distributions; district court adopted Layaou-offset methodology on remand.
Supreme Court reversed our prior approach, holding deference to the plan administrator's interpretation on remand; remand followed.
District court applied Firestone deferential review and adopted the plan administrator’s offset method, holding it reasonable and that notice was adequate.
Plaintiffs contend the offset violates ERISA notice provisions and is an unreasonable interpretation; district court also denied further discovery on conflict-of-interest issues.
We hold the offset is an unreasonable interpretation and violates ERISA notice, vacate the judgment, and remand for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the offset violate ERISA notice requirements?	Plaintiffs argue offset not disclosed in SPDs.	Defendant argues SPDs plus plan terms allow offset.	Yes; offset violates ERISA notice provisions.
Is the offset a reasonable interpretation of the Plan under Firestone deference?	Plaintiffs contend offset misaligns with plan terms and is not reasonable.	Defendant contends offset is a permissible interpretation using Section 9.6 and RIGP mechanics.	No; offset is an unreasonable interpretation of the Plan.
Should the district court have allowed discovery on Plan administrator conflict of interest?	Plaintiffs seek discovery per Glenn to probe conflict of interest.	Defendant asserts no need for further discovery; administrator is Xerox employee; Glenn does not require reopening.	Discovery not required; district court did not abuse discretion.

Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506 (Supreme Court 2010) (reversed deference approach on remand, directing deferential review)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court 1989) (establishes deferential Firestone standard for plan interpretations)
Layaou v. Xerox Corp., 238 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2001) (ERISA notice interplay with plan terms; SPDs interpretation)
Frommert v. Conkright, 433 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2006) (ERISA plan interpretation and phantom offset preceding ruling)
Frommert v. Conkright, 535 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008) (initial appellate ruling on deference and offset methodology)
Amara v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (Supreme Court 2011) (equitable remedies under ERISA § 1132(a)(3))
McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (not requiring blanket disclosure rules for all SPDs)
Burke v. Kodak Ret. Income Plan, 336 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2003) (harm standard for ERISA notice violations)
Tocker v. Philip Morris Cos., 470 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2006) (harm standard tied to notice in ERISA cases)
Glenn v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 554 U.S. 105 (Supreme Court 2008) (conflict-of-interest as a factor in abuse of discretion analysis)