ERISA preemption. Colleton Regional Hospital v. MRS Medical Review Systems Inc

ERISA preempts state law claims brought by hospitals against medical utilization review firm including claims of tortious interference with contracts, defamation, unfair trade practices, bad faith refusal to pay claims and improper claims practices.     

Health plans--enforcement of right to reimbursement under ERISA section 502(a)(3). Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company v. Knudson

The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its reluctance "to tamper with [the] enforcement scheme" embodied in ERISA by authorizing remedies not specifically authorized by ERISA's text, and held that section 502(c)(3) does not authorize a plan to bring an action to enforce the plan's reimbursement provisions because recovering monetary damages for reimbursement is not relief typically available in equity and, therefore, is not "other equitable relief" within the meaning of section 502(a)(3). An action to impose personal liability on the Knudsons for a contractual obligation to pay money is an action seeking legal, not equitable, relief and is not authorized by section 502(a)(3).     

ERISA preemption. St. Francis Medical Center v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc

ERISA preempts hospital's state law action challenging insurer's rule banning health plan participants from assigning their benefit claims to health care providers who had not signed contracts with insurer.     

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Ravencraft v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

Ravencraft v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, 212 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2000): Although ERISA does not explicitly require it, the Sixth Circuit and most of the others require that a participant pursue all plan remedies before bringing suit. An action against a plan or plan fiduciary will be dismissed if the participant fails to exhaust the administrative remedies available to it under the plan unless he or she can show that pursuing those remedies would be futile, such as where the available remedies are inadequate or unfair. If a participant's case is dismissed solely because of the failure to follow the procedural steps for review under the plan, the dismissal should be without prejudice so that the participant can file suit again, if necessary, after he or she goes back to pursue the remedies available under the plan.     

Large shareholder diversification,corporate risk taking,and the benefits of changing to differential voting rights

We show how the change to differential voting rights allows dominant shareholders to retain control even after selling substantial economic ownership in the firm and diversifying their wealth. This unbundling of cash flow and control rights leads to more dispersed economic ownership and a closer alignment of dominant and dispersed shareholder interests. When insiders sell sizeable amounts of their economic interests, firms increase capital expenditures, strengthen corporate focus, divest non-core operations, and generate superior industry-adjusted performance. The change to differential voting rights both fosters corporate control activity and creates higher takeover premiums that are paid equally to all shareholders.