Chris K. Meyer

Representative cases include:

• Shore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2019 WL 4141059 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2019), voluntarily dismissed on appeal, No. 19-2086 (4th Cir. Dec. 16, 2019): Sidley 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.
• In re: SunEdison, Inc. ERISA Litigation, 331 F. Supp. 3d 101 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), affirmed, 2019 WL 2404660 (2d Cir. June 7, 2019): Sidley 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.
• Usenko v. MEMC, LLC, 2018 WL 999982 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2018), affirmed, 926 F.3d 468 (8th Cir. 2019): Sidley 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. The Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed.
• Nolan v. Detroit Energy Co., et al., 2019 WL 2996178 (E.D. Mich. July 9, 2019): Sidley obtained dismissal on the pleadings of a putative ERISA class action challenging Detroit Energy’s offer to permit employees to voluntarily move from a traditional defined benefit formula to a cash balance formula. The court held that the company satisfied ERISA’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.
• 2017 WL 1536234 (W.D.N.C. April 27, 2017), affirmed, 736 Fed. Appx. 359 (4th Cir. June 5, 2018): Sidley successfully defended against an ERISA class action challenging the 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. 
• Ahrens v. UCB Holdings, Inc., et al., 2016 WL 81488 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2016): 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.
• 688 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2012): Sidley obtained dismissal on the pleadings of ERISA class action claims challenging a plan’s “normal retirement age.” The case involved complex “whipsaw,” “backloading,” 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).
• Walker v. Monsanto Co. Pension Plan, 614 F.3d 415 (7th Cir. 2010): Sidley 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.
• Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, 571 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2009): Sidley 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.
• Hurlic v. Southern California Gas Co., 539 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008): Sidley 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.
• Antolik v. Saks, Inc., 463 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006): 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.
• Buus v. Washington Mutual, 2007 WL 45110311 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2007): Sidley 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.
• Kemper Corporate Services, Inc. v. Computer Sciences Corporation and DXC Technology Co., 946 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2020): Sidley obtained a substantial victory for Kemper in a AAA arbitration against Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). After an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator held that CSC breached its contractual obligations in connection with a software conversion project, and awarded Kemper over $135 million in damages, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The district court confirmed the award in full, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
• Matrix IV, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 649 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2011): Sidley 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.
• BCS Services, Inc. v. Heartwood 88, LLC: 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.