Trustee’s Post-Trial Attack on DOL’s Pursuit of Monetary Relief on Plan’s Behalf Crumbles

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
January 29, 2020

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,264 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
5084 Industrial Machinery and Equipment
423830 Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
ESOP valuations
expert testimony, breach of fiduciary duty, fair market value (FMV), overpayment, employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), adequate consideration
Pizzella v. Vinoskey (II)
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15464; 2020 WL 476669
US
Federal Court
Virginia
United States District Court
Dana Messina (plaintiff/DOL); Frank (“Chip”) Brown, Howard Kaplan (defendants/trustee and owner)
Moon

Summary

District court denies trustee’s motion for a new trial based on argument that Secretary of Labor lacked authority to pursue monetary relief against defendants; court says the plain language of the statute on which the DOL’s claims are based allows secretary to obtain damages on behalf of the ESOP.

See Also

Pizzella v. Vinoskey (II)

Full Text of Court Cases
January 29, 2020

District court denies trustee’s motion for a new trial based on argument that Secretary of Labor lacked authority to pursue monetary relief against defendants; court says the plain language of the statute on which the DOL’s claims are based allows secretary to obtain damages on behalf of the ESOP.