Pension Protection Act Blog

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, No. 06-923. MetLife v. Glenn is a case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals about conflicts of interest for ERISA administrators. The 6th Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court that MetLife’s decision finding Glenn no longer totally disabled was not arbitrary and capricious, and then remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. MetLife appealed the 6th Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was that appeal which the Supreme Court heard today. I wrote a summary of the 6th Circuit’s opinion here a few months ago.

From the transcript of the oral argument today, it is difficult to determine which way this case is going to be decided by the Court. The transcript is an excellent read of how oral argument before the Court can go horribly wrong for some attorneys. The Justices were very active today, and the questioning itself is well worth reading. The depth of questions from the Justices is more than matched by the number of questions and the rapidity of questioning. The first 20 pages of the transcript is a lesson within itself of how an attorney can manage not to complete a sentence when being questioned by the Justices.

Whichever way the Court decides this case, the transcript of the oral argument is clear that the serious ERISA issue involved in this case is receiving a lot of attention from the Court.

Technorati Tags: Pension Protection Act, ppa, Supreme Court, Metlife, Glenn, No. 06-923, conflict of interest, ERISA