Perelman v. Perelman
919 F. Supp. 2d 512
E.D. Pa.2013Background
- This ERISA case involves Jeffrey Perelman’s proposed Second Amended Complaint against General Refractories Company (GRC) and Raymond Perelman with Guzek as Plan administrator.
- Jeffrey sought injunctive relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3) for alleged fiduciary breaches related to Plan investments in Revlon bonds and related insider transactions.
- Court previously dismissed monetary-relief claims and limited standing for injunctive relief, while recognizing standing to enforce plan documents.
- Jeffrey later sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint adding § 502(a)(2) monetary-relief claims and new factual allegations about Plan underfunding.
- GRC and Raymond/Guzek moved for judgment on the pleadings; Jeffrey opposed and sought to amend further; Reliance Trust Company was appointed as independent trustee.
- The court denied leave to amend; granted in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss certain equitable relief requests as moot or inadequately pled—and narrowed an audit claim to current-funding assessment only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to pursue §502(a)(2) claims | Perelman seeks monetary relief as Plan beneficiary | No injury-in-fact; no risk to entire plan | Amendment futile; no standing for money damages under §502(a)(2) |
| Mootness of removal and independent-trustee relief | Relief remains necessary despite trustee changes | Resignation and new trustee moot the injunctive relief | Claims moot to removal of Raymond and Guzek and appointment of independent trustee |
| Indemnification clause validity | Trust indemnity void under ERISA 410 | Indemnification within safe harbor under regulations | Plan indemnification clause void; Trust Agreement indemnification clause viable for declaratory relief |
| Permanent injunctive relief to bar future ERISA trustees | Prevent future fiduciary misconduct by Raymond/Guzek | Prudential standing; private plaintiff not best suited | Dismissed due to prudential standing; Secretary typically pursues such relief |
| Audit of the Plan | Audit to test veracity of past Form 5500 data | Audit scope overbroad and relates to monetary claims | Audit claim allowed only to determine current Plan funding status; scope limited |
Key Cases Cited
- Horvath v. Keystone Health Plan E., Inc., 333 F.3d 450 (3d Cir. 2003) (ERISA standing and Article III reach for equitable relief)
- LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (Defined-benefit plan injury must affect plan-wide risk to have standing)
- Beck v. Levering, 947 F.2d 639 (2d Cir. 1991) (permanent injunctions in private ERISA suits discussed)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (injury-in-fact and standing principles for Article III)
- Harley v. Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co., 284 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2002) (standing in defined-benefit plans when plan surplus exists)