Eversheds Sutherland 11th Circuit Business Blog
content top

Tax Penalty May Be Communicated to Taxpayer Prior to Required Supervisory Approval

In Kroner v. Commissioner, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25650 (11th Cir. Sept. 13, 2022), the court reversed a U.S. Tax Court decision to hold that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) did not violate section 6751(b) of the Internal Revenue Code when it obtained supervisory approval prior to the assessment of a tax penalty, even though the penalty was communicated to the taxpayer prior to...

ERISA Beneficiary May Recover as “Appropriate Equitable Relief” Benefits Lost Due to Fiduciary’s Breach

The Eleventh Circuit has joined every other Court of Appeals to consider the issue by holding that an ERISA beneficiary may recover under ERISA’s Section 1132(a)(3), which permits an action for “appropriate equitable relief,” benefits lost as a result of a breach of fiduciary duty. Gimeno v. NCHMD, Inc., 38 F.4th 910 (11th Cir. June 28, 2022). Justin Polga was a doctor employed by...

“Local Controversy” CAFA Exception Not Established by Proof of Class Citizenship

An inartfully pleaded class definition coupled with a failure of proof was enough to prevent a class-action plaintiff from invoking the Class Action Fairness Act’s “local controversy” exception to avoid removal from the sheltering arms of a Florida circuit court, according to the Eleventh Circuit in Simring v. GreenSky, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8002 (11th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022). The...

Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Employer’s Favor on ERISA Claims Arising from Discontinuation of Life Insurance

In Klaas v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 38473 (11th Cir. Dec. 28, 2021), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in the employer’s favor on ERISA claims stemming from the employer’s discontinuation of retirees’ life insurance benefits. Until 2013, Allstate provided eligible Allstate employees with life insurance that continued after the employee’s retirement....

Strike While the Arbitration Award Is Hot: Three-Month Window to File Motion to Vacate Does Not Prevent Earlier Confirmation

The Federal Arbitration Act provides for motions to confirm (9 U.S.C. § 9) or to vacate or modify (9 U.S.C. §§ 10, 11) an arbitration award, but the motions are not all subject to the same deadline. A motion to confirm may be filed within a year after the award is made, whereas the window for filing a motion to vacate or modify is only three months. (Compare id. § 9, with § 12.) But...

« Older Entries