15-3602-cv 

In the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit

______________ 

 

GEOFFREY OSBERG, on behalf of himself and

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FOOT LOCKER, INC., and

FOOT LOCKER RETIREMENT PLAN,

 Defendants-Appellants.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

______________

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

REQUESTING AFFIRMANCE

______________

M. PATRICIA SMITH ELIZABETH HOPKINS

Solicitor of Labor Counsel for Appellate and Special Litigation

G. WILLIAM SCOTT EIRIK CHEVERUD

Associate Solicitor Attorney

 U.S Department of Labor

 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Suite N-4611

 Washington, DC 20210

 Tel. (202) 693-5516
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..........................................................................ii

QUESTION PRESENTED............................................................................. 1 

THE SECRETARY'S INTEREST.................................................................. 2 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................................................... 3 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................................................ 9 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................................................... 15

ARGUMENT................................................................................................ 17

I. The District Court Correctly Applied the "Fraud or 

Concealment" Provision of ERISA Section 413 to Conclude 

that the Fiduciary Breach Claims Were Timely...................... 17 

II. Plaintiffs Need Not Show Detrimental Reliance on

Foot Locker's Misrepresentations to Establish that

Foot Locker Breached its Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA

Section 404(a), or to Obtain Equitable Relief for Such 

Misrepresentations in the Form of Reformation..................... 22

III. Plaintiff Need Not Directly Show Mistake by Each

Member of the Class in Order to Obtain Reformation............ 27

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 30
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Cases:

Amara v. CIGNA Corp.,

775 F.3d 510 (2d Cir.2014) ......................................................................... passim

Baltzer v. Raleigh & Augusta R. Co.,

115 U.S. 634 (1885).............................................................................................25

Beecher v. Able, 

575 F.2d 1010 (2d Cir. 1978) ....................................................................... 29 n.2

Bell v. Pfizer, Inc.,

626 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 23, 26

Berger v. Xerox Ret. Income Guar. Plan,

338 F. 3d 755 (7th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................7

Burnstein v. Ret. Account Plan for Emps. of Allegheny Health Educ. 

& Research Found.,

334 F. 3d 365 (3d Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 27 n.1

Caputo v. Pfizer,

267 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ passim

CIGNA Corp. et al. v. Amara et al., 

563 U.S. 421 (2011)...................................................................................... 24, 25

Esden v. Bank of Bos.,

229 F. 3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000) .............................................................................6, 7

Feifer v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

306 F.3d 1202 (2d Cir. 2002) ..............................................................................25

Hi-Lex Controls Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.,

751 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................21
iii

Federal Cases-(continued):

Janese v. Fay,

692 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................................................................18

King v. Pension Tr. Fund of Elec. Indus.,

131 F. App'x 740 (2d Cir. 2005)................................................................... 24, 26

Klay v. Humana,

382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................28

Laurent v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP,

963 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd on other grounds,

794 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 2015) .................................................................................25

Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc.,

555 F. App'x 77 (2d Cir. 2014)............................................................................27

Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

463 U.S. 85 (1983).................................................................................................3

United States v. Woods,

134 S. Ct. 557 (2013)...........................................................................................19

Varity v. Howe,

516 U.S. 489 (1996).............................................................................................23

Zell v. Am. Seating Co.,

138 F.2d 641 (2d Cir. 1943), rev'd on other grounds,

322 U.S. 709 (1944)...................................................................................... 29 n.2

Federal Statutes:

Internal Revenue Code:

I.R.C. 417(e)(3), 26 U.S.C. § 417(e)(3).....................................................................7
iv

Federal Statutes-(continued):

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (Title I),

as amended, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq:

Section 2, 29 U.S.C. § 1001....................................................................................1

Section 4(23)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1003(23)(A)...........................................................6

Section 102(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1022(a)................................................ 2, 9, 12, 13, 26

Section 204(g), 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g) ......................................................................4

Section 205(g)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1055(g)(3).............................................................6

Section 404, 29 U.S.C. § 1104..............................................................................12

Section 404(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)........................................ 9, 10, 12, 22, 23, 26

Section 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) .............................................................2

Section 404(a)(1)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)................................................12

Section 404(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B).................................................13

Section 413, 29 U.S.C. § 1113.............................................. 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22

Section 502(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a).....................................................................22

Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) ........................................ 16, 22, 24, 26

Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 1134................................................................................2

Section 505, 29 U.S.C. § 1135................................................................................2
v

Miscellaneous:

26 C.F.R. § 1.417(e)-1(d)...........................................................................................7

Concealment, Black's Law Dictionary 360 (Rev. 4th ed. 1968) .............................20

Fraud, Black's Law Dictionary 788 (Rev. 4th ed. 1968).........................................19

1 Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 4.3(7) (2d ed. 1993)..................................................26
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

This appeal arises from a class action brought by plaintiff Geoffrey Osberg, 

a former employee of defendant Foot Locker, Inc. (Foot Locker, or Company) and 

a participant in the Foot Locker Retirement Plan (Plan). Plaintiff alleges that Foot 

Locker violated numerous provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., when it made misrepresentations 

regarding the Plan's conversion in 1996 from a traditional defined benefit plan to a 

cash balance plan. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that both prior to the cash balance

plan conversion and in subsequent summary plan descriptions (SPDs), Foot 

Locker, the Plan's sponsor, administrator, and named fiduciary, violated ERISA by

intentionally misrepresenting to plan participants that their retirement benefits 

would continue to increase after the conversion. Plaintiff asserts that the 

conversion, in fact, was designed to and actually did cause many participants, 

including Osberg, to experience a sometimes-lengthy period during which 

participants temporarily stopped accruing benefits. 

After a previous appeal, this Court vacated the district court's dismissal of 

the case. On remand, the district court certified a class, conducted a bench trial, 

and issued an order and final judgment in Osberg's and the class's favor, ruling that 

Foot Locker, through inaccurate SPDs and other communications, purposefully 

misled plan participants about the conversion, which was designed to save Foot 
2

Locker money at their expense. The court held that these actions by Foot Locker, a 

Plan fiduciary, violated ERISA section 102(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1022(a), and ERISA 

section 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1). The court ordered the plan to be 

reformed to provide the benefits that Foot Locker had promised. Defendants have 

appealed that order and final judgment, and the Secretary's brief addresses the 

following questions:

1. Whether the district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs' claims for 

fiduciary breach violations were timely under ERISA's "fraud or concealment" 

provision.

2. Whether the participants were required to show that they detrimentally 

relied on Foot Locker's misrepresentations in order to establish that Foot Locker 

breached its fiduciary duties and to obtain class-wide relief in the form of 

reformation.

3. Whether the district court correctly found that the plaintiffs established 

that Foot Locker's misstatements caused them to have a mistaken understanding of 

how their benefits would accrue after the cash balance plan conversion.

THE SECRETARY'S INTEREST

The Secretary of Labor is vested with primary regulatory and enforcement 

authority for Title I of ERISA, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 1134, 1135, a "comprehensive 

statute designed to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in 
3

employee benefit plans." Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983). 

The Secretary thus has a substantial interest in ensuring that ERISA plan 

participants and beneficiaries are fully and accurately apprised of their rights under 

their plans, that they have a full and accessible set of remedies to redress instances 

of inadequate notice, and that they are not prematurely barred access to court when 

they seek to obtain those remedies.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Geoffrey Osberg was an employee of defendant Foot Locker from 

1982 to 2002. Joint App'x (JA) 1107. Throughout that time, Osberg participated 

in the Foot Locker Retirement Plan. See id. at 1106–16. Prior to January 1, 1996, 

the Plan was a traditional defined benefit plan that paid participants a monthly 

retirement benefit tied to their compensation and years of service with the 

Company. Id. at 3462. Effective January 1, 1996, however, Foot Locker 

converted the Plan to a "cash balance" plan, which, while still subject to the rules 

governing defined benefit plans, operates more like a defined contribution plan. 

Id. at 3463. Under the amended cash balance plan, a participant's benefit is 

expressed as a hypothetical, or notional, account balance, which is increased by 

two factors: (1) "compensation credits," which are based on a percentage of the 

participant's earnings and which Foot Locker contributes annually to participants' 

accounts; and (2) a 6% annual rate of interest. Id. at 3477. Upon retirement or 
4

termination of employment, participants can elect to receive their account balances 

either as a lump sum or in monthly installments. Id. at 3465. For employees who 

participated in the Plan as of December 31, 1995, and consistent with ERISA's 

anti-cutback rule, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g), which prohibits ERISA plans from 

reducing accrued benefits through plan amendments, Foot Locker guaranteed that 

their benefit under the amended Plan would not be less than their accrued Plan 

benefit as of December 31, 1995 (pre-1996 Plan). JA 3465–66, 3504.

Before the conversion, Foot Locker promised participants that the amended 

Plan would pay them benefits under an "A plus B" approach: participants would be 

entitled to their accrued benefit under the pre-1996 Plan (Part A), plus the 

continued accrual of benefits under the cash balance plan (Part B). JA 3504. For 

example, in a November 17, 1995 memorandum from Foot Locker's corporate 

benefits department to "all employees" announcing the impending conversion 

(1995 Memorandum), Foot Locker told participants that, under the soon-to-beamended Plan, their "accrued benefit as of December 31, 1995 [would be] 

actuarially converted to an initial account balance." Id. at 2141. Furthermore, far 

from informing participants that their benefits would not be subject to a no-growth 

period after the conversion, the 1995 Memorandum stated that their "account 

balance[s] w[ould] increase in two ways" – namely, through annual interest and 

compensation credits. Id. at 2141–42.
5

Following the conversion, Foot Locker reiterated to participants that their 

initial account balances were the actuarial equivalent of their pre-1996 accrued 

benefit, and that they would continue to accrue benefits under the amended Plan. 

In an SPD distributed by Foot Locker in December 1996 (the "1996 SPD"), the 

Company explained in a section titled "How Your Retirement Benefit is 

Determined" that a participant's initial account balance was "equal to the actuarial 

equivalent lump sum value of your accrued benefit under the Plan as of December 

31, 1995." JA 2155 (The Woolworth Retirement Plan: Summary Plan Description 

(Dec. 1996) at 10)); id. at 3479. This section of the 1996 SPD similarly described 

a participant's "initial account balance" as "the value of your Plan benefit as of 

December 31, 1995, before the Plan was amended." Id. at 2155, 3478. The SPD's 

introduction also equated participants' initial account balances with their accrued 

benefits: "To accomplish this change [to a cash balance plan], participants' accrued 

benefits as of December 31, 1995 were converted to initial account balances." Id.

at 2145. The SPD then illustrated how the account balance of a hypothetical 

participant with 10 years of service with Foot Locker as of January 1, 1996, would 

consistently grow over the ensuing three years under the Amended Plan. Id. at 

2158.

Yet in reality, the Amended Plan's initial account balances were not the 

"actuarial equivalent lump sum value" of the plan participants' pre-1996 accrued 
6

benefits, but rather something far less – a discrepancy that caused most participants 

to temporarily stop accruing benefits following the cash balance conversion. In the 

context of defined benefit plans, ERISA defines "accrued benefit" as "the 

individual's accrued benefit under the plan . . . expressed in the form of an annual 

annuity at normal retirement age," 29 U.S.C. § 1003(23)(A), with the Foot Locker 

Plan, in turn, generally defining "normal retirement age" as age 65, JA 2150. The 

lump-sum actuarial equivalent of a participant's accrued benefit – i.e., of their age65 annuity – is the present lump-sum amount that, when increased by an assumed 

rate of interest over a period of time until the participant turns 65, will grow to 

become equivalent to the lump-sum value of the annuity owed at age 65. See

Esden v. Bank of Bos., 229 F.3d 154, 159 (2d Cir. 2000) (explaining that for

normal retirement annuity benefits under defined benefit plans, "[a]ny distribution 

in optional form (such as a lump sum) must be no less than the actuarial equivalent 

of such benefit. For a cash balance plan this calculation involves projecting the 

cash balance forward and then discounting back to present value."). 

The assumed annual rate of interest applied to the present lump sum is vital 

to this calculation: the higher the interest rate, the lower the present lump-sum. 

Because this interest rate operates to discount the participant's age-65 lump-sum 

benefit to its present lump-sum equivalent, it is often referred to as a "discount 

rate." ERISA section 205(g)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1055(g)(3), requires that plans 
7

calculate the present lump-sum value of an annuity using the discount rate 

prescribed in Treasury regulations issued pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code,

26 U.S.C. § 417(e)(3), which is equivalent to the annual interest rate applicable to 

30-year Treasury Bonds (a rate the Internal Revenue Service determines on a 

monthly basis). 26 C.F.R. § 1.417(e)-1(d); see Esden, 229 F.3d at 159 (explaining 

that in calculating actuarial equivalent lump sums, "the discount rate is prescribed 

by statute"); JA 3465; accord Berger v. Xerox Ret. Income Guar. Plan, 338 F. 3d 

755, 760 (7th Cir. 2003). Thus, a Plan participant who retired on January 1, 1996, 

and elected to receive her benefit in a lump sum would have been entitled to have 

her lump-sum benefit determined by a discount rate equivalent to the 30-year TBond rate then in effect. See JA 2446. When the conversion occurred, this rate 

was 6.06%. See JA 963.

But Foot Locker did not use the 6.06% rate to convert participants' accrued 

benefits into initial account balances. Instead, Foot Locker applied a 9% discount 

rate. JA 3463–65. Foot Locker's use of a higher discount rate than the one 

established by ERISA for determining actuarial equivalent lump sums meant that 

participants' initial account balances were not, as Foot Locker represented to its 

participants, the "actuarial equivalent lump sum value of [their] accrued benefits," 

but rather something less than that. Id. at 3464–65. As a result, employees who 

participated in the pre-1996 Plan – i.e., Plan participants who were entitled under 
8

ERISA to receive at least their accrued benefit under the pre-1996 Plan – did not 

accrue any new benefits following the conversion until their lesser account 

balances, through annual interest and compensation credits, caught up with, or 

"wore away," their accrued benefit under the pre-1996 Plan. Id.

Mr. Osberg's situation exemplifies this problem. Because the deficit 

between his initial account balance and his pre-1996 accrued benefit was so 

substantial, he did not accrue any new benefits between 1996 and his retirement in 

2002. JA 1108–09. Foot Locker did not disclose in its 1995 Memorandum that it 

would calculate initial account balances under the Amended Plan using a 9% 

discount rate as opposed to the required 6.06% rate; nor did it otherwise mention 

the possibility of wear away. See JA 2141. The 1996 SPD mentioned a 9% 

interest rate only once, in a definitional section, which stated that the "initial 

account balance" would be "determined actuarially based upon a 9% rate of 

interest and the mortality table set forth in IRS rulings." JA 2150. The SPD did 

not advise participants that the Plan's application of the interest rate was 

inconsistent with the SPD's express promise that they would receive "the actuarial 

equivalent" of their accrued benefits, nor did it explain how the interest rate 

factored into the benefit calculation. Nowhere did the 1996 SPD explain that using 

this rate would result in an extended wear-away period, during which participants 
9

would work for Foot Locker without accruing additional retirement benefits. See

id. at 2144–67.

Upon retiring in 2002, plaintiff elected to receive his benefits in a lump sum. 

Though his benefits election statement indicated his lump-sum distribution 

($25,695.96) exceeded his account balance under the cash balance plan 

($20,093.78), JA 176, there was no indication in that statement that this higher 

lump-sum amount stemmed from his pre-1996 Plan benefit, see JA 1004.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Acting on behalf of a putative class, plaintiff filed his original complaint on 

February 23, 2007, and filed an amended complaint against Foot Locker, Inc. on 

January 9, 2012. Dkt. Nos. 53, 57. As relevant, the amended complaint alleges 

that Foot Locker (1) violated ERISA section 102(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1022(a), by 

issuing SPDs that failed to disclose the Amended Plan's wear-away effects; and (2) 

violated its fiduciary duties under ERISA section 404(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a), 

through its actions and omissions described above. Dkt. 57 (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 88–

114). Among other things, it seeks equitable relief in the form of reformation of 

the plan in order to give the participants what they were promised, and then 

benefits as calculated under the reformed Plan. Id. at p. 40 (Prayer for Relief ¶¶ D, 

E). 
10

The district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in its 

entirety on December 6, 2012, thereby dismissing the case. JA 184. 

On appeal, however, this Court reversed the district court's decision. JA 

202. First, this Court determined plaintiff's section 404(a) claim was timely. Id. at 

199. Second, this Court concluded "that the district court erroneously applied an 

'actual harm' requirement" given plaintiff's requested remedy of contract 

reformation, which would afford him "the total relief sought" in the form of 

additional benefits under the Plan's reformed terms. Id. at 200–202.

On remand, the district court certified plaintiff's proposed class of Plan 

participants in a September 24, 2014 order. JA 226. After a bench trial, the 

district court made extensive findings of fact and issued an order and final 

judgment in favor of the participants. Id. at 3459–3543. The court credited the 

testimony of plaintiff and other class members that they did not understand the 

cash balance plan conversion might cause them to suffer a wear-away period. Id.

at 3467–92. This was true, the court determined, even for the testifying class 

members who received individual communications from defendants about their 

retirement benefits and how they were calculated. Id. at 3459 n.2 ("There is no 

evidence in the record that any average Plan Participant ever understood that he or 

she was subject to wear-away, even once his or her benefits commenced."). 

Further, the court found, based on the credited testimony of Foot Locker 
11

management, that (1) Foot Locker converted its retirement plan to a cash balance 

plan in part to save costs; (2) Foot Locker management knew prior to the 

conversion that it would cause Plan participants to suffer lengthy wear-away 

periods; and (3) Foot Locker management thought the conversion "had the 

advantage of being able to obscure what was an effective [benefits] freeze, without 

the accompanying negative publicity, loss of morale, and decreased ability to hire 

and retain workers." Id. at 3467–85. The court also found that none of Foot 

Locker's communications with employees about the conversion described the 

possibility of wear-away, or "the difference between a Participant's accrued benefit 

under the old Plan and . . . her cash balance under the new," and that those 

statements were therefore "intentionally false and misleading." Id. at 3473–74. In 

particular, the SPD distributed to employees in December 1996 "contained a 

number of intentionally false misstatements," including its description of how the 

cash balance plan's initial account balance would be calculated and how the initial 

account balance related to a participant's vested benefits as of December 31, 1995. 

Id. at 3477–85. 

Turning to the law, the court began its analysis by noting that ERISA section 

502(a)(3) entitles plan participants to obtain "appropriate equitable relief" to 

redress statutory violations, such as the violations of ERISA's prudence and loyalty 

provisions in ERISA section 404, 29 U.S.C. § 1104, and the violations of ERISA's 
12

SPD requirements in ERISA section 102(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1122(a), asserted by the 

class. JA 3510. More specifically, with regard to the reformation remedy sought 

by the class, the court noted that he "must show: (1) violations of ERISA §§ 404(a) 

and 102(a), based on a preponderance of the evidence; (2a) mistake or ignorance 

by employees of 'the truth about their retirement benefits,' based on clear and 

convincing evidence; and (2b) 'fraud or similar inequitable conduct' by the plan 

fiduciaries, based on clear and convincing evidence." Id. (quoting Amara v. 

CIGNA Corp., 775 F.3d 510, 525–31 (2d Cir.2014)).

The court then determined that Foot Locker was a fiduciary by virtue of 

being the Plan administrator and being granted discretionary authority to 

administer the Plan. JA 3518–19. The court next held, based on its extensive 

factual findings concerning Foot Locker's desire to cut the costs of its pension plan 

through a deliberate scheme to mislead the participants about their benefits under 

the converted Plan, that Foot Locker violated ERISA's duty of loyalty under 

section 404(a)(1)(A) by "plac[ing] its interests above those of Plan Participants" 

when it converted to the cash balance plan. Id. at 3520–21. Similarly, "by 

implementing a plan conversion that effectively eliminated additional benefit 

growth for a period of years," while at the same time misleading participants about 

those wear-away effects, the court determined that Foot Locker likewise violated 

ERISA's duty of prudence under section 404(a)(1)(B). Id. at 3522–23. Finally, the 
13

court determined that defendant had violated ERISA section 102(a), because "the 

SPD was not written clearly," did not sufficiently explain how the pre-1996 benefit 

related to the Amended Plan's initial account balance, and falsely stated that the 

conversion methodology "result[ed] in actuarial equivalence." Id. at 3526–27.

Next, the court reaffirmed the prior ruling it made when certifying the 

proposed class that, while plaintiffs had the burden of proving the existence of 

class-wide misrepresentations about the Plan conversion, which it met, this did 

"not require proof of individualized reliance" on those misrepresentations. JA 

3529–30. Moreover, the court concluded that, in any event, "there is 

overwhelming trial evidence that, if legally necessary, plaintiffs have proven a 

reasonable inference of class-wide reliance." Id. at 3529. Indeed, the court pointed 

out that "Foot Locker admitted at trial that the very purpose of keeping wear-away 

secret was to avoid negative publicity, loss of morale, and inability to hire and

retain employees." Id. at 3529.

Turning to the elements needed to obtain a reformation remedy, the district 

court ruled that the class had shown "by clear and convincing evidence," based 

primarily on class members' credited testimony and Foot Locker's communications 

with them, that "[p]articipants reasonably but mistakenly believed that their 

pension benefits were equal to the sum of (A) the benefit each Participant earned 

under the Plan's traditional 'defined benefit' annuity formula for service through 
14

December 31, 1995, plus (B) the benefits Foot Locker told Participants they were 

earning under the Plan's 'cash balance' account formula for service after January 1, 

1996." JA 3530–31. Therefore, plaintiffs had sufficiently shown class-wide 

mistake for purposes of obtaining reformation. Id. at 3531.

The court also concluded that the class had shown Foot Locker engaged in 

both fraud and inequitable conduct. The court reasoned that there was "no doubt" 

the class had met its burden of showing equitable fraud, which does not require a 

showing of intent to deceive or defraud, because "Foot Locker sought and obtained 

cost savings by altering the Participants' Plan, but [did] not disclos[e] the full 

extent or impact of those changes." JA 3532–33. Moreover, the court concluded 

that the class had sufficiently shown Foot Locker engaged in "inequitable conduct" 

as well, given that its withholding of information from the class induced its 

mistake. Id. at 3534–35.

Finally, the court addressed defendants' argument that the class should be 

modified to exclude members whose claims allegedly were barred by the 

applicable statutes of limitations. JA 3536. The court concluded that the class's 

section 404 claims were subject to the statutory "fraud or concealment" exception 

in ERISA section 413, 29 U.S.C. § 1113, making the limitations period six years 

from when the class members discovered the fiduciary breach. Id. at 3537. This 

was so, the court reasoned, because the class members did not understand that they 
15

were subject to wear-away due to Foot Locker's misrepresentations and omissions, 

even after they received or began receiving Plan benefits, and "[t]here [wa]s no 

evidence of a single Class member who was aware or reasonably could have been 

aware of wear-away outside the statutes of limitations." Id. Furthermore, the court 

disagreed with defendant that class members who terminated their employment 

with Foot Locker prior to suit were on notice of their wear-away claims. The court 

explained that "class members' receipt of benefits was insufficient" to give them 

"notice of their claims." Id.

The district court therefore issued an order and final judgment in favor of the 

participants, ordering class-wide relief in the form of reformation and payment of 

additional benefits under the reformed Plan. JA 3541–43. 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

1. The district court properly concluded that plaintiffs timely filed their 

complaint asserting fiduciary breach claims under ERISA's provision allowing suit 

within six years of discovery of a statutory breach or violation in cases involving 

"fraud or concealment." Contrary to Foot Locker's assertion, plaintiffs were not 

required to establish the elements of common law fraud, including intentionality 

and reliance, to show concealment for purposes of this statutory provision. This 

Court in Caputo v. Pfizer long ago rejected just such an argument, which conflates 

the terms "fraud" and "concealment," despite the use of the disjunctive term "or" in 
16

the provision. Because the district court did not commit clear error in finding that 

Foot Locker, a fiduciary under the pension Plan, failed to explain and instead 

actively concealed how the cash balance conversion would affect Plan participants, 

the court correctly held that plaintiffs were entitled to file suit within six years of 

discovering the breaches. 

2. Foot Locker likewise errs in arguing that each member of the class must 

demonstrate that he or she detrimentally relied on Foot Locker's misrepresentations 

in order to establish that Foot Locker breached its duties as a fiduciary and to 

obtain equitable relief in the form of reformation. As with Foot Locker's 

"fraudulent concealment" argument, this argument simply ignores this Court's own 

precedent. In Amara v. CIGNA, this Court, after remand from the Supreme Court, 

soundly rejected the argument that that plan participants and beneficiaries need to 

show detrimental reliance to obtain reformation under section 502(a)(3) as relief 

for fiduciary misrepresentations and omissions. And, contrary to Foot Locker's 

argument, no pre-Amara case from this Circuit actually holds that each member of 

a class of plan participants must establish detrimental reliance to prove a fiduciary 

breach based on misrepresentations or to obtain reformation as relief, nor does any 

other cited case so hold. Here, the district court found, based on extensive 

testimonial and documentary evidence, that Foot Locker misstated the effects of 

the conversion to a cash balance plan, and intentionally obscured the fact that the 
17

conversion was designed to save it a great deal of money by effectively causing a 

benefits freeze for many employees. These findings are not clear error and fully 

support the court's conclusion that Foot Locker acted disloyally to its employees 

and that, as a consequence, plaintiffs were entitled to reformation of the Plan to 

pay them what Foot Locker promised.

3. Just as each class member need not establish detrimental reliance, each 

and every member need not show mistake in order to obtain reformation. Again, 

in arguing to the contrary, Foot Locker ignores this Court's decision in Amara, 

which concluded that plan participants can prove mistake for purposes of 

reformation "through generalized circumstantial evidence in appropriate cases," 

such as where "defendants have made uniform misrepresentations about an 

agreement's contents and have undertaken efforts to conceal its effect." That is 

what the plaintiffs have done here, as the district court found. 

ARGUMENT

I. The District Court Correctly Applied the "Fraud or Concealment" 

Provision of ERISA Section 413 to Conclude that the Fiduciary Breach 

Claims Were Timely

Pursuant to ERISA section 413, an action for breach of an ERISA fiduciary 

duty must be brought within:

(1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a 

part of the breach or violation, or (B) in the case of an omission, the 
18

latest date on which the fiduciary could have cured the breach or 

violation, or

(2) three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual 

knowledge of the breach or violation.

29 U.S.C. § 1113. However, the statute also provides that, "in the case of fraud or 

concealment, such action may be commenced not later than six years after the date 

of discovery of such breach or violation." Id.; see Janese v. Fay, 692 F.3d 221, 228 

(2d Cir. 2012). 

Based on its extensive and well-supported factual findings, the district court 

correctly concluded that the "fraud or concealment" limitations period was 

applicable to plaintiff's section 404(a) claims, and that the claims were timely 

under that provision. Foot Locker argues this was error because the district court 

concluded only that it had engaged in equitable fraud, and not common-law fraud, 

which, according to Foot Locker, requires a showing of both fraudulent intent and 

reliance. Appellant's Br. 36-37. This is true, Foot Locker argues, even for "the 

'concealment' prong," which Foot Locker describes as "requir[ing] a showing of 

fraudulent concealment." Id. Foot Locker is mistaken.

First, even if a showing of fraudulent intent were required, the district court 

in fact found that Foot Locker's communications with participants were 

"intentionally false and misleading," JA 3474, and that, as we discuss below, the

participants reasonably but mistakenly believed what they had falsely been told. 
19

See infra at 28-29. In any event, even if plaintiffs were required and failed to 

establish common-law fraud to come within the first prong, plaintiffs established 

that Foot Locker concealed its breaches for purposes of the second prong through 

the false and misleading SPDs and other communications to its employees and 

their dependents. Foot Locker's argument to the contrary conflates the fraud and 

concealment prongs of the statutory provision and thus asks the court to ignore 

Congress's use of the disjunctive term "or" in section 413, United States v. Woods, 

134 S. Ct. 557, 567 (2013) (the term "or" in "ordinary use is almost always 

disjunctive, that is, the words it connects are to be given separate meanings"), and 

asks this Court to issue a decision in conflict with its own precedent. 

In Caputo v. Pfizer, Inc., this Court "decline[d] to follow our sister circuits 

in fusing the phrase 'fraud or concealment' into the single term 'fraudulent 

concealment.'" 267 F.3d 181, 189 (2d Cir. 2001). Instead, the Caputo court 

explained that the terms "fraud" and "concealment" had distinct meanings when 

Congress passed ERISA. "'Fraud' was defined as 'a false representation of a matter 

of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by 

concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is 

intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.'" Id.

(quoting Black's Law Dictionary 788 (Rev. 4th ed.1968)). In contrast, 

"'concealment' was defined as 'withholding of something which one knows and 
20

which one, in duty, is bound to reveal.'" Id. at 189–90 (quoting Black's Law 

Dictionary 360 (Rev. 4th ed.1968)).

Applying these definitions, this Court concluded in Caputo that the pertinent 

section 413 provision is satisfied if there is either: (1) "fraud," which occurs when 

"a fiduciary . . . breached its duty by making a knowing misrepresentation or 

omission of a material fact to induce an employee/beneficiary to act to his 

detriment"; or (2) "concealment," which occurs if the fiduciary "engaged in acts to 

hinder the discovery of a breach of fiduciary duty." 267 F.3d at 190 (citation 

omitted). In other words, fraud or concealment occurs if the fiduciary engages in a 

knowing misrepresentation that has the intent to deceive or induce detrimental 

reliance, or either knowingly withholds pertinent information or actively conceals 

the underlying breach. See id. at 190. 

Foot Locker suggests that this Court's opinion in Caputo held that to 

establish "concealment" under section 413 a plaintiff must show the same 

intentional fraud and reliance that they say is necessary under the first prong of the 

statutory test. Appellant's Br. 37 (citing Caputo, 267 F.3d at 190). It is true that 

Caputo acknowledges that the Second Circuit's interpretation of the fraud or 

concealment provision "overlaps somewhat with that of our sister circuits as we 

construe it to apply in cases of fraud or [fraudulent] concealment.'" 267 F.3d at 

190. But, in the preceding paragraph, the Court stated both that "Congress 
21

[clearly] intended to provide a lengthier statute of limitations where the fiduciary 

breached its duty by misrepresenting or failing to disclose a fact that ERISA 

required the fiduciary to disclose," and that the term "concealment" would be 

"superfluous unless its common, independent meaning with respect to causes of 

action" applied to it, which the court described as "hinder[ing] the discovery of a 

breach of fiduciary duty." Id. (citations omitted). In other words, "fraud or 

concealment" occurs if the fiduciary engages in a knowing misrepresentation that 

has the intent to deceive or induce detrimental reliance or either knowingly 

withholds material information or actively conceals the underlying breach. Id. 

Contrary to Foot Locker's argument on appeal, this Court has therefore made clear 

that a plaintiff does not need to show an intent to defraud (or reliance on a 

misrepresentation) in order to come under the concealment prong of section 413.

The district court's extensive factual findings support its application of the 

"fraud or concealment" exception to plaintiff's section 404(a) claims because they 

establish that Foot Locker failed to explain and indeed actively concealed how the 

cash balance conversion would affect Plan participants, an effort it undertook to 

avoid the workplace turmoil it anticipated would occur upon full and truthful 

disclosure about the cash balance conversion’s wear-away effects. JA 3467–73; 

see also Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 751 F.3d 740, 

749 (6th Cir. 2014) (concealment prong satisfied where defendant lied to plan 
22

administrator about the hidden fees it was charging the plan). That this 

concealment occurred is further supported by the court's factual finding, based on 

testimony by numerous plan participants, JA 3467–93, that the "Class members did 

not understand that they were subject to wear-away as a result of Foot Locker's 

misrepresentations and omissions," id. at 3537 ("There is no evidence of a single 

Class member who was aware or reasonably could have been aware of wear-away 

outside of the statute of limitations."). 

II. Plaintiffs Need Not Show Detrimental Reliance on Foot Locker's 

Misrepresentations to Establish that Foot Locker Breached its Fiduciary 

Duties Under ERISA Section 404(a), or to Obtain Equitable Relief for Such 

Misrepresentations in the Form of Reformation 

Defendants mistakenly argue that each member of the class must 

demonstrate she detrimentally relied on Foot Locker's misrepresentations in order 

to establish that Foot Locker breached its duties as a fiduciary and to obtain 

reformation as "appropriate equitable relief" under section 502(a)(3). Appellant's 

Br. at 38–44. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court and Second 

Circuit in Amara, and by the Second Circuit in its prior decision in this case.

Drawing on the law of trusts, ERISA's loyalty provision, codified in section 

404(a), requires each plan fiduciary to "discharge his duties with respect to a plan 

solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). 

It is therefore unsurprising and beyond dispute that "[t]o participate knowingly and 
23

significantly in deceiving a plan's beneficiaries in order to save the employer 

money at the beneficiaries' expense" is a violation of ERISA's loyalty provision 

codified in section 404(a). Varity v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 506 (1996); see also id.

(noting that "'[l]ying is inconsistent with the duty of loyalty,'" and that the "duty of 

loyalty requires trustee to deal fairly and honestly with beneficiaries") (citations 

omitted). Here, the court found, based on extensive testimonial and documentary 

evidence, that the SPDs and other communications from Foot Locker misstated the 

effects of the conversion to a cash balance plan, and intentionally obscured the 

fact, known by management, that the conversion was designed to save the 

company a great deal of money by effectively causing a benefits freeze for many 

employees. JA 3467–73. Not just do these findings fully support that Foot Locker 

committed fiduciary breaches under Varity, but further it is hard to imagine how 

the court could have drawn any other conclusion than that Foot Locker's actions 

were disloyal, regardless of whether each and every plan participant detrimentally 

relied on its misrepresentations. 

The Second Circuit decisions Foot Locker cites for the proposition that an 

ERISA plaintiff must establish detrimental reliance to prove a fiduciary breach 

based on misrepresentations, Appellant's Br. at 38, are not to the contrary. In Bell 

v. Pfizer, Inc., 626 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2010), the court held that unintentional 

miscommunications that did not relate to a plan participant's status under an 
24

ERISA plan could not support a fiduciary breach claim. Id. at 75, 77. Its 

statement that a plaintiff must establish detrimental reliance for a breach of 

fiduciary duty claim based on material misrepresentation was dicta (for which it 

cited an unpublished summary decision which did not address how to establish a 

fiduciary breach for misrepresentation), and did not go to what was necessary to 

establish an injury and entitlement to relief. Id. at 75 (citing King v. Pension Tr.

Fund of Elec. Indus., 131 F. App'x 740, 742 (2d Cir. 2005)). And the other case 

cited by King was the Caputo decision, which did not state that proof of 

detrimental reliance is required to establish that misrepresentations are fiduciary 

breaches, but merely stated that a plaintiff can show "materiality" by showing a 

"substantial likelihood" that a reasonable employee would be misled, 267 F.3d at 

192, a standard that the district court's decision here clearly met. 

Moreover, for purposes of awarding equitable relief under ERISA section 

502(a)(3), "any requirement of harm must come from the law of equity," CIGNA 

Corp. et al. v. Amara et al., 563 U.S. 441, 443 (2011), where, as here, the "relevant 

substantive provisions" do not "set forth any particular standard for determining 

harm." Id. Applying this principle, the Supreme Court in Amara rejected 

CIGNA's argument that a participant must always show detrimental reliance before 

a court can provide a remedy. 563 U.S. at 443 (the law of equity in the days of the 

divided bench lacked a "general principle that 'detrimental reliance' must be proved 
25

before a remedy is decreed"). Accord Amara, 775 F.3d at 532 n.12. Instead, 

although equity courts required a detrimental-reliance showing before awarding the 

remedy of estoppel, the Supreme Court recognized that a court could reform a 

contract to reflect the mutual understandings of the parties without a showing of 

detrimental reliance "where 'fraudulent suppressions, omissions, or insertions'" 

materially affected the contract. Amara, 563 U.S. at 443; see also Laurent v. 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, 963 F. Supp. 2d 310, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 

("whereas estoppel requires detrimental reliance, no such requirement attaches to 

reformation or surcharge"), aff'd on other grounds, 794 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 2015).

On remand, this Court addressed and rejected the precise argument Foot 

Locker makes here: that plan participants and beneficiaries need to show 

detrimental reliance to obtain reformation under section 502(a)(3) as relief for 

fiduciary misrepresentations and omissions. Amara v. CIGNA Corp., 775 F.3d 

510, 525 n.12 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Baltzer v. Raleigh & Augusta R. Co., 115 U.S. 

634, 645 (1885); 1 Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 4.3(7) at 617 (2d ed. 1993)). This 

makes sense, because reformation is a way of enforcing an agreement that by 

virtue of fraud or mistake is not reflected in the written contract, and a showing of 

harm is generally not required to enforce a contract. See Feifer v. Prudential Ins. 

Co. of Am., 306 F.3d 1202, 1213 (2d Cir. 2002). Thus, in Amara, this Court 

allowed reformation without requiring a showing that class members detrimentally
26

relied on misrepresentations in that case. Likewise, in the earlier appeal in this 

case, this Court already rejected the argument that Osberg and other members of 

the class were required to show "actual harm," including by establishing that they 

detrimentally relied on Foot Locker's misrepresentations. JA 192 ("To obtain 

contract reformation [for violations of ERISA sections 102(a) and 404(a)], equity 

does not demand a showing of actual harm."). 

As in Amara, plaintiffs' section 404(a) claims in this case are based on Foot 

Locker's failure to provide accurate information and its affirmative 

misrepresentations about the cash balance conversion in SPDs and other 

communications to plan participants. And as in Amara, these omissions and 

misstatements by Foot Locker establish that Foot Locker breached its duties to 

Plan participants, and allow the court to reform the Plan to give the participants 

what Foot Locker led them to believe they would get, whether or not they 

demonstrated that they detrimentally relied on these communications. To the 

extent this conflicts with non-binding statements in the pre-Amara decisions Foot 

Locker cites, see Bell, 626 F.3d at 75; King, 131 F. App'x 740, 742, the Supreme 

Court's decision in Amara, and the subsequent decisions by this Court in Amara

and in this case, have made clear that there is no need to establish detrimental 
27

reliance to obtain reformation as a remedy for misrepresentations of the kind at 

issue here. See Amara, 775 F.3d at 526 n.12; Osberg, 555 F. App'x at 80.1

III. Plaintiff Need Not Directly Show Mistake by Each Member of the Class 

in Order to Obtain Reformation

Foot Locker also argues that the district court erred by holding that plaintiffs 

established mistake for purposes of reformation because "there is no 'satisfactory 

proof' that each and every class member shared a common misunderstanding about 

Foot Locker's Plan," and "it is far from 'unquestionable' that every one of the 

16,000 class members here was mistaken about his retirement benefit." 

Appellant's Br. at 47–48. Such a showing, however, is unnecessary.

In this Court's Amara decision on remand from the Supreme Court, it quite 

rightly concluded that plan participants can prove mistake for purposes of 

reformation "through generalized circumstantial evidence in appropriate cases." 

775 F.3d at 529. As the court there pointed out, "[s]uch proof may be more than 

sufficient, moreover, in certain cases where, as here, defendants have made 

uniform misrepresentations about an agreement's contents and have undertaken 

 1

 For the same reason, the Third Circuit decision that defendants cite – Burnstein 

v. Ret. Account Plan for Emps. of Allegheny Health Educ. & Research Found., 

334 F.3d 365, 387 (3d Cir. 2003) – is questionable authority after Amara for the 

proposition that a claim for reformation based on fiduciary misrepresentations 

requires a showing of detrimental reliance. In any event, this case certainly does 

not hold that every member of the class must separately establish detrimental 

reliance. 
28

efforts to conceal its effect." Id. at 529–30 (describing uniform misrepresentations 

occurring through class-wide distribution of misleading SPDs); see also Klay v. 

Humana, 382 F.3d 1241, 1258–59 (11th Cir. 2004) (ruling that, "based on the 

nature of the misrepresentations at issue," generalized circumstantial evidence 

"could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude beyond a preponderance of the 

evidence that each individual plaintiff relied on the defendants' 

misrepresentations"). 

This is another such case. As in Amara, Foot Locker distributed SPDs to 

Plan participants that "contained a number of intentionally false misstatements," 

including its description of how the cash balance plan's initial account balance 

would be calculated and how the initial account balance related to a participant's 

vested benefits as of December 31, 1995. JA 3477–85. Here, the district court 

concluded on the basis of extensive facts established at trial that, in fact, the class 

"has proven by clear and convincing evidence that, as a result of Foot Locker's 

false, misleading, and incomplete Plan descriptions, employees were ignorant of 

the truth about their retirement benefits. Specifically, class members' testimony 

and other evidence demonstrated that the class members reasonably but mistakenly 

believed that growth in their cash balance benefit equaled growth in their pension 

benefit." Id. at 3531. Under Amara, the fact that the proof was circumstantial for 
29

much of the class is no basis for reversal, and the pre-Amara, non-ERISA cases 

that Foot Locker cites, Appellant's Br. at 46, are not to the contrary.2

 2

 In Beecher v. Able, the Second Circuit refused to reform an already-approved 

settlement agreement simply because the number of claimants against the 

settlement fund proved to be less than had been estimated. 575 F.2d 1010, 1015 

(2d Cir. 1978). Zell v. Am. Seating Co., was not about reformation at all, but 

concerned whether summary judgment was proper under the parole evidence rule 

or whether an oral promise that was contrary to a written contract should be 

considered. 138 F.2d 641 (2d Cir. 1943), rev'd on other grounds, 322 U.S. 709 

(1944). And both cases are simply cited by Foot Locker for the unremarkable 

proposition that the purpose of reformation is to conform contracts to the 

expectations of the parties. See Appellant's Br. at 46. 
30

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Secretary requests that this Court affirm the district 

court's order and final judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

Respectfully submitted,

M. PATRICIA SMITH

Solicitor of Labor 

G. WILLIAM SCOTT

Associate Solicitor 

Plan Benefits Security Division 

ELIZABETH HOPKINS

Counsel for Appellate and Special 

Litigation 

/s/ Eirik Cheverud

EIRIK CHEVERUD

Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Room N-4611 

200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 693-5516

cheverud.eirik.j@dol.gov
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 

FEDERAL RULES 28.1 & 32 and FIFTH CIRCUIT R. 28.1 & 32.2

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of FED. R. APP. P. 

28.1(e) and 32(a)(7)(B) because: this brief contains 6,819 words, excluding the 

parts of the brief exempted by FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 

32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(6) because: this 

brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 

2010 in 14-point, Times New Roman font.

/s/ Eirik Cheverud 

EIRIK CHEVERUD

 Trial Attorney

Dated: May 24, 2016
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 24th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the 

Brief for the Amicus Curiae, Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing 

to all registered counsel of record.

/s/Eirik Cheverud

EIRIK CHEVERUD