CHRIS MEYER is a partner in the firm’s Litigation group. He is a versatile litigator who handles a broad range of complex commercial disputes and has significant experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants at trial or arbitration hearings. Chris has represented clients in a wide variety of commercial disputes at the trial and appellate levels, including breach of contract, non-compete, non-solicit, wrongful termination, defamation, tortious interference, product liability, and fraud claims. He has also defended financial institutions against claims brought under the civil RICO statute.
Chris has significant experience with class action lawsuits challenging the design and administration of employee benefit plans, including claims challenging the management of investments offered to participants in 401(k) plans, and claims alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA and ERISA’s age discrimination, disclosure, and fiduciary provisions. Chris has been defending plan sponsors in complex employee benefit cases throughout his entire career and has a proven track record of success.
In addition to representing plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and benefit plans in litigation, Chris frequently advises clients in developing appropriate disclosures to plan participants and responding to inquiries from participants. He also assists in disputes with plan participants during the pre-litigation claims process, helping clients develop an appropriate administrative record and minimizing litigation risk.
パートナー
Chris K. Meyer
- 商取引に関する訴訟及び紛争処理
- 米国従業員退職所得保証法(ERISA法)訴訟
経験
- 代表案件
Representative cases include:
- Successfully tried an ERISA class action and obtained a complete defense victory for Gannett Co., Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs represented a class of more than 10,000 participants in Gannett’s 401(k) plan who alleged that the committee in charge of the plan breached its fiduciary duties by taking too long to liquidate a legacy stock fund that invested in the stock of Gannett’s former parent company. Plaintiffs sought upwards of $58 million in damages. This was the first time this issue had ever been tried. The Sidley team succeeded in convincing the court in a three-day bench trial that the Gannett committee followed a prudent process and breached no duties. On December 8, 2023, Chris and his colleague received runner-up honors for “Litigator of the Week” by The American Lawyer. Stegemann v. Gannett Co., Inc. (E.D. Va. 2023).
- In an ERISA class action, obtained dismissal of a claim challenging Detroit Energy’s offer to permit employees to voluntarily move from a traditional defined benefit formula to a cash balance formula. The district court held that the company satisfied ERISA 204(h)’s notice and disclosure requirements in describing the new formula, and held that plaintiff’s claim for benefits based on the plan terms was barred by the statute of limitations. Chris argued the appeal to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s 204(h) claim. The remaining claims were settled on favorable terms. Nolan v. Detroit Energy Co. (6th Cir. 2021).
- In a 2022 confidential AAA arbitration, defeated claims seeking the rescission of tens of millions of dollars in payments under a separation agreement based on allegations that Sidley’s client breached non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in his separation agreement. After a four-day arbitration hearing, the arbitrator rejected claimant’s novel theory that forming a special purpose acquisition corporation constituted the provision of competitive investment advice or investment management.
- Obtained a substantial victory for Kemper in an AAA arbitration against Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). After a two-week arbitration hearing, the arbitrator held that CSC breached its contractual obligations in connection with a software conversion project, and awarded Kemper over $140 million that was confirmed, affirmed on appeal, and collected. Kemper Corporate Services, Inc. v. Computer Sciences Corporation and DXC Technology Co. (5th Cir. 2020).
- In a confidential AAA arbitration hearing, obtained an award of over $44 million for a client for breach of contract in connection with the internalization of a commercial real estate investment trust.
- Represented a wireless telecommunications provider in an arbitrated dispute with a long-term vendor concerning the parties’ respective rights following termination of their relationship.
- Represented a wireless telecommunications provider in a dispute arising out of the reorganization of its sales agent distribution channel.
- Represented a wireless telecommunications provider as a respondent in an arbitration proceeding, securing injunctive relief against an outsourced software vendor who threatened to terminate a key system, sanctions for violating the terms of the injunction, and dismissal of all claims against Sidley’s client.
- Represented an automotive sector supplier in a recall action concerning allegedly defective air bags before National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
- Obtained dismissal of a products liability action against Smith & Nephew’s English parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the foreign parent company placed disputed products into the forum state’s stream of commerce or that the parent company acted as an alter ego of the subsidiary, and denied plaintiff’s motion for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff did not appeal the district court’s rulings. Taylor v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (S.D. Miss. 2019).
- Obtained dismissal on the pleadings of a putative ERISA class action alleging that a hospital authority’s benefit plans violated ERISA. The court held that the hospital authority was a political subdivision under federal law and therefore exempt from ERISA. Shore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. (M.D.N.C. 2019).
- Obtained dismissal on the pleadings of a putative ERISA class action alleging that the fiduciaries of the SunEdison 401(k) plan acted imprudently by permitting SunEdison stock as an investment option in the months preceding SunEdison’s bankruptcy. The Second Circuit unanimously affirmed. In re: SunEdison, Inc. ERISA Litigation (2d Cir. 2019).
- Advised a pension benefits committee of a telecommunications provider in assessing claims for retroactive early retirement benefits based on alleged failure to communicate early retirement provisions to participants. The district court affirmed the committee’s denial of benefits based on the record developed at the administrative level.
- Obtained dismissal on the pleadings of a putative ERISA class action alleging that fiduciaries of the MEMC 401(k) plan acted imprudently by continuing to offer the stock of a predecessor company from which MEMC was spun off. Chris argued the case before the Eighth Circuit, which unanimously affirmed. Usenko v. MEMC, LLC (8th Cir. 2019).
- Sidley successfully defended against an ERISA class action challenging a major financial institution’s transfer of assets from a 401(k) plan to a pension plan. After Sidley prevailed at a bench trial, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision. 736 Fed. App’x. 359 (4th Cir. 2018).
- Sidley represented UCB in an ERISA class action challenging the pension calculations of employees who participated in the defined benefit plans of two companies acquired by UCB. Sidley obtained dismissal on the pleadings of claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violation of ERISA’s claim procedure regulations. The court held that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations, failed to state a claim for violation of ERISA’s regulations, and that plaintiffs lacked standing.
- Obtained dismissal on the pleadings of ERISA class action claims challenging the “normal retirement age” set forth in a major financial institution’s pension plan. The case involved complex “whipsaw,” “backloading,” and lump sum benefit and disclosure claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plan complied with ERISA and that the plan terms were adequately disclosed to participants. This outcome was built on favorable precedent Sidley established in prior litigation (see Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan below). 688 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2012).
- Chris spearheaded the joint defense of over 65 named defendants in one of the few civil RICO cases to go to jury trial in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to rig the bidding at the annual Cook County tax lien auctions over a period of several years. Sidley helped its clients obtain a very favorable settlement during the second week of a four-week trial. BCS Services, Inc. v. Heartwood 88, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2011).
- Represented and obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of a football coach at a major NCAA Division I program in connection with his termination.
- Won summary judgment on all claims in a $6 billion class action seeking expansion of ERISA and fiduciary liability through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Third Circuit unanimously affirmed. Engers v. AT&T (3d Cir. 2011).
- Obtained judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant in a case addressing the preclusive effect of judgments rendered in a bankruptcy court on later litigation between creditors. In a prior bankruptcy proceeding, defendant had prevailed in an adversary proceeding to establish lien priority. After losing in the bankruptcy court, the plaintiff brought a separate action against defendant asserting claims for common law fraud and violations of RICO. The Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed, holding that plaintiff was collaterally estopped from re-litigating issues that were decided by the bankruptcy court. Matrix IV, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago (7th Cir. 2011).
- Won summary judgment in favor of defendants in an ERISA class action challenging the design of a cash balance benefit plan. Plaintiffs claimed that the plan’s benefit formula violated ERISA’s age discrimination provisions by allegedly reducing interest credits upon the attainment of a specific age. The district court found that the plan complied with ERISA, and the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed. Walker v. Monsanto Co. Pension Plan (7th Cir. 2010).
- Obtained dismissal on the pleadings of an ERISA class action that challenged employers’ discretion to define “normal retirement age” in their benefit plans. This was the first opinion in the country that upheld a plan sponsor’s discretion to define this statutory term of art, which plays an important role in calculating a participant’s benefits and determining compliance with certain benefit accrual standards. The Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed. Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan (7th Cir. 2009).
- Won dismissal on the pleadings of an ERISA class action asserting claims of age discrimination, backloading, and statutory notice violations in the district court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the age discrimination and backloading claims in a closely watched and precedent-setting appeal. Hurlic v. Southern California Gas Co. (9th Cir. 2008).
- Sidley was retained on appeal after a bench trial in an ERISA class action brought by former employees seeking severance pay. The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiffs’ state law claims were preempted by ERISA and that their claims for equitable relief under ERISA failed as a matter of law. Antolik v. Saks, Inc. (8th Cir. 2006).
- Won dismissal of ERISA class action age discrimination and notice claims at the pleadings stage. The district court held that the defendant plan complied with ERISA’s age discrimination requirements and that plaintiffs’ notice claims failed to state a claim for relief. Buus v. Washington Mutual (W.D. Wash. 2007).
得意分野
業務内容
ニュース&インサイト
資格
弁護士資格・登録
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
- U.S. District Court, N.D. of Illinois - General
- U.S. District Court, E.D. of Michigan
- Illinois
学歴
- シカゴ大学法科大学院 , J.D., 2004
- University of Notre Dame, B.A., 1998