concluding that an insurer was a fiduciary with respect to assets it held in its general account because those assets were “plan assets”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that an insurer was a fiduciary with respect to assets it held in its general account because those assets were “plan assets”
- describing the term “investment contract” as “a catch-all” phrase to include “interests that have the functional attributes of stock and other formal securities but are not so denominated”
- where no interest was guaranteed after first three years of group annuity contract, insurer was liable as ERISA fiduciary
- “annuity contract" guaranteeing interest on contributions for the first three years only, with investment income credited as earned thereafter constituted an investment contract
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
The appellee has filed a petition for rehearing and we permitted it to file a supplemental memorandum of law by counsel newly hired since the panel handed down its decision. The petition seeks essentially clarification and modification based on a number of arguments and authorities that the appellee’s original counsel had not drawn to the attention of the court. In view of the fact that the panel decision merely reverses the dismissal of the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(6)(b), the case is at an early stage and the appellee will have ample opportunity to present its arguments to the district court consistently with the flexible contours of the doctrine of law of the case.