Photo of Nick Pastan

Nick Pastan

Nick Pastan is a litigator whose practice focuses on high stakes commercial and class action litigation. Nick represents clients in a broad spectrum of litigation matters, and has developed extensive experience in highly technical areas such as ERISA and tax, as well as matters where the government is a party. Nick has experience representing clients at all stages of litigation, from case inception through trial and appeal.

Contact:Read more about Nick PastanEmail

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), a case addressing the pleading standard for prohibited-transaction claims under § 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  Section 406(a) proscribes certain transactions between plans and “parties in interest” absent a statutory exemption enumerated under ERISA § 408.  The core question on appeal was whether plaintiffs must allege, as an element of a prohibited-transaction claim under § 406(a), that an exemption under § 408 does not render the challenged transaction lawful.

In a decision that is expected to have wide-ranging implications, the Court held that exemptions under § 408 provide affirmative defenses to liability under § 406(a).  Consequently, plaintiffs need not allege that any of the exemptions set forth in § 408 are unavailable to state a plausible claim for relief.  Rather, the burden falls on plan fiduciary defendants to plead and prove that an exemption under § 408 nullifies a plaintiff’s claim.

The Court recognized that its decision in Cunningham could make it more difficult for defendants to secure the dismissal of prohibited-transaction claims by invoking a statutory exemption.  If so, plan sponsors (and other fiduciaries) could be forced to engage in costly discovery defending transactions that ERISA expressly permits, effectively penalizing them for providing valuable and necessary services to participants.

Provided below is a more detailed discussion of Cunningham, divided into three parts.  The first part briefly discusses the legal framework governing prohibited-transaction claims.  The second part summarizes the Court’s analysis.  The third part concludes with an overview of potential mitigation strategies.Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Pleading Standard for Prohibited-Transaction Claims under ERISA § 406(a)

In January, we posted about the Department of Labor’s (DOL or the “Department”) proposed rule to allow more Association Health Plans (AHPs) to be regulated as large group health plans.  The proposed rule garnered national attention and the Department received over 900 stakeholder comments from consumer groups, individual employers, employer associations, health insurance issuers, business groups, and state regulators.  Supporters of the rule emphasized the need for more affordable health care options while detractors raised concerns about the rule’s potential effects on the existing health care markets and the scope of coverage that will be available to individuals who enroll in AHPs.

On June 19, 2018, the Department finalized the rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 28912 (June 19, 2018) (codified at 29 C.F.R. 2510), with relatively few changes to the proposed rule.Continue Reading DOL Finalizes Highly Anticipated Rule Aimed at Expanding Access to Association Health Plans

On February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court decided CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, 574 U.S. ___ (2018), which raised, for the second time in three years, the question of how courts should interpret collective-bargaining agreements (“CBAs”).  Reese involved a dispute between retirees and their former employer, CNH, about whether an expired 1998 CBA created a vested right to lifetime health benefits.  In a per curiam opinion, the Court found that a straightforward reading of the CBA compelled the conclusion that retiree health benefits expired when the CBA expired in 2004.  The Court’s opinion emphasized the significance of CBA expiration dates for retiree health benefits and forcefully reiterated its decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 574 U.S. ___ (2015), that collective-bargaining agreements must be interpreted according to “ordinary principles of contract law.”
Continue Reading Supreme Court Deals Another Blow to Sixth Circuit’s “Yard-Man Inferences”

On January 5, 2018, the Department of Labor (DOL or the “Department”) published a proposed rule to allow more Association Health Plans (AHPs) to be regulated as large group health plans. 83 Fed. Reg. 614 (Jan. 5, 2018) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 2510). The proposed regulation was developed in response to President Trump’s October 12, 2017 Executive Order 13813, directing the executive branch to facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and, specifically, directing the DOL to “consider proposing regulations or revising guidance . . . to expand access to health coverage by allowing more employers to form AHPs.” The proposed regulation fulfills this charge by relaxing the Department’s existing interpretation of the conditions under which an association is considered the employer sponsor of a single multiple employer welfare arrangement under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). 83 Fed. Reg. at 626. An AHP that is a single multiple employer arrangement more easily qualifies as a plan offered in the large group market because it may aggregate employees of all employer members to determine the plan’s market. In some cases under the proposed rules, an AHP may be offered to employers in more than one State, even if the AHP is insured.
Continue Reading DOL Proposes to Relax Regulations Governing Association Health Plans