Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Fifth Circuit Vacates Settlement Approval in ERISA Class Action, Remanding With Instructions to Reexamine the Legitimacy of Promised Future Payments

by Carlton Fields

The Fifth Circuit recently vacated a class action settlement that included unsecured and uncollateralized future payments to the plaintiffs, while providing a swift and complete payout of fees to class counsel. The case concerned a defined benefits pension fund created and owned by the Singing River Health System (SRHS), a community hospital owned by Jackson County, Mississippi. Following the 2008 financial crisis, SRHS encountered financial difficulties, failed to make all but one contribution to the plan, and ultimately froze the plan in 2014. The plaintiffs, a class of pension plan participants, brought suit, and a settlement was ultimately reached. The district court held a fairness hearing and approved the settlement, which required SRHS to pay approximately $150 million into a retirement trust over a 35-year schedule. At the fairness hearing, approximately 250 objectors challenged the settlement, arguing that it was illusory because, among other things, it promised an extraordinarily long-term, unsecured, and unpredictable proposed payout, while at the same time, providing a rapid payment schedule for attorneys’ fees.

Reviewing the settlement approval under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the Fifth Circuit found much of the district court’s determinations sound. However, in analyzing whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, the court found that the district court focused too narrowly on SRHS’s proffered payments and not enough on the hospital’s ability to sustain those payments or how the settlement would impact individual beneficiaries. Specifically, the court found inadequate the “very brief treatment of these issues” and acceptance of “boilerplate summations by the hospitals’ CFO […] that SRHS ‘should be able’ to make its scheduled settlement payments….” Overall, the court found that the information provided at the fairness hearing failed to establish that SRHS, still in precarious shape, would be able to handle the escalating annual installment payments required under the settlement. Further, the court took issue with class counsel’s arrangement for a complete payout of fees from SRHS before 2018, therefore alleviating any future risk of nonpayment to counsel. On this point, the court found “disturbing” that “counsel assured themselves a multimillion-dollar bird in hand, while leaving the class members two in the bush[.]” In all, the court determined that the record provided no assurance to the class members that the plan would not run out of money to pay the claims well before 2051. As a result, it vacated the settlement approval and remanded with the aim of providing the class members greater transparency about the settlement’s weaknesses.

Jones v. Singing River Health Servs. Found., No. 16-60550 (5th Cir. July 27, 2017).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Second Circuit Clarifies Ascertainability Rule, Rejecting “Heightened” Standard of Administrative Feasibility

Next Article »

Eleventh Circuit Doesn’t Waffle on Enforceability of Arbitration Agreement

About Carlton Fields

Related Articles

  1. DC Circuit Holds Named Plaintiff Who Settles Individual Claims Retains Standing To Appeal Denial Of Class Certification
  2. GCs facing more bet-the-company and higher exposure class actions
  3. Missouri District Court Joins the List: Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Does Not Moot Claims

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

2025 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • Supreme Court Refuses to Decide Whether Damages Class Containing Both Injured and Uninjured Members Can Be Certified
  • Royal Canin v. Wullschleger: A Primer on Jurisdiction
  • Classified (Bi-)Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions From Federal Appellate Courts July and August 2024

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified®: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Copyright © 2025 · Carlton Fields · All Rights Reserved