 |
 |
|
Attorneys: Thomas Moukawsher |
|
|
|
|
 Education
University of Connecticut (J.D., cum laude, 1986)
The Citadel (B.A., magna cum laude, 1983)
Bar Admissions
United States Supreme Court, Connecticut Supreme Court, Second Circuit Court of Appeals (NY), Third Circuit Court of Appeals (PA), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (IL), Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (CA), U.S. District Courts, Northern, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, District of Connecticut, District of Arizona (in addition, Mr. Moukawsher is admitted pro hac vice in many federal district courts throughout the country)
Biography
Thomas G. Moukawsher is one of the country's leading innovators in the field of employee benefits law. Mr. Moukawsher has successfully broken new ground in benefits litigation in cases from California to Connecticut. A successful litigator for many years, Mr. Moukawsher won national recognition for his 1994 Second Circuit victory in Mullins v. Pfizer, setting a major precedent in ERISA misrepresentation cases. His successful representation of defrauded plan participants in the multi-million dollar Emergi-Lite pension case in 1999, led to national and international attention in publications ranging from features on Japanese television, in the Los Angeles Times to a cover story in Money magazine.
During 1998-00, in the wake of a massive 13 year fraudulent scheme involving a multimillion dollar 401 (k) plan, Mr. Moukawsher represented pension plan participants in Briere v. Emergi-Lite, Inc., No. 398CV01558 (SRU)(D.Conn.) and Briere v. Moore, No. 398CV00983 (WWE)(D.Conn.). During this ERISA breach of fiduciary duty litigation, he was able to secure by agreement the return of millions of dollars of stolen pension funds, interest, expenses and all attorneys' fees, despite the fact that the third party administrator who embezzled the funds was uninsured and judgment proof and despite the fact that the fund was not covered by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund or trustee insurance. The case received repeated national recognition including on the CBS and ABC Evening News, a Money magazine cover story, and several features on television in Japan where 401k's were being examined for the first time.
From 1997 to 1999, Mr. Moukawsher was counsel to the plaintiffs in Adamczyk v. Lever Bros. 991 F. Supp. 931(N.D. Ill. 1997) where he represented plaintiffs in the Northern District of Illinois at Chicago, a case involving disclosure duties under ERISA. Following legal rulings by the Court, the case was resolved by agreement on behalf of all plaintiffs. The case resulted in the first published opinions on several important questions related to this species of breach of fiduciary duty in the Illinois district courts and the seventh circuit generally.
Mr. Moukawsher was counsel to the plaintiff in Mullins v. Pfizer, 23 F.3d 663 (2d Cir. 1994) a case involving disclosure duties under ERISA. Mullins, overturning a district court decision, became one of the first decisions in the nation to recognize that employer/fiduciaries can be held liable for failing to disclose information in response to questions about benefit enhancements considered but not yet adopted. Mullins has been the subject of numerous scholarly and journalistic works about ERISA law. In 2001, the case ended following a bench decision in favor of the plaintiff. Mullins v. Pfizer, 147 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.Conn. 2001).
From 1996-2001, Mr. Moukawsher was counsel to the plaintiff in Bins v. Exxon, 220 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc). The Bins case was the first case in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, via eleven judge en banc panel, recognized a breach of fiduciary duty claim similar to the one at issue in Mullins. The decisions in the case were reported in media across the country as major new precedents, and the en banc argument during which he represented Mr. Bins was broadcast on C-SPAN. During 2001, the Bins case was among the topics at a number of ERISA litigation conferences, including the American Bar Association's June 2001 ERISA conference at which Mr. Moukawsher participated as a member of the faculty.
Mr. Moukawsher was counsel to the plaintiffs in Caputo v. Pfizer, Inc., 26 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2001), a case involving ERISA disclosure. The plaintiffs' successful appeal in this case resulted in an important Second Circuit ruling on the ERISA statute of limitations and the so-called "serious consideration" test. In the decision, the Court of Appeals rejected the views of the majority of other circuits and, at the plaintiffs' urging, took an expansive view of the statute of limitations and reinforced the Court's prior rejection of the "serious consideration" test.
Mr. Moukawsher was counsel to the plaintiffs in Mathews v. Chevron Corp., 362 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir., 2004), a case involving the scope of “appropriate equitable relief” under ERISA. Mathews reversed a strong trend in the Ninth Circuit of narrow views of equitable remedies in ERISA cases.
In 2004, after an eight year legal battle, Mr. Moukawsher won a multi-million judgment in Connecticut for benefits against Northeast Utilities in Broga v. Northeast Utilities, 315 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.Conn. 2004).
In 2005, Mr. Moukawsher won a summary judgment worth over $3 million in benefits in favor of Cingular workers in Parry v. SBC, 363 F. Supp. 2d 275 (D.Conn. 2005).
In 2006, Mr. Moukawsher was counsel for the plaintiff class in Richards v. FleetBoston, 427 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.Conn. 2006) in which the District of Connecticut upheld an age discrimination cause of action on behalf of thousands of FleetBoston cash balance pension plan participants. Several similar challenges elsewhere in the country have failed. The case was only the second case to uphold a cause of action following the much noted, and now reversed, ruling in Cooper v. IBM, 274 F.Supp.2d 1010 (S.D.Ill.2003), reversed, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 23227 (7th Cir. Ill., Sept. 1, 2006). It has been the subject of nationwide coverage in the media and much scholarly discussion.
Mr. Moukawsher is currently class counsel in certified class actions pending before the District of Connecticut in Amara v. CIGNA, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25947 (D. Conn. 2002), and Richards v. FleetBoston, 235 F.R.D. 165 (D. Conn. 2006) covering a class of approximately 45,000 participants, as well as before the Second Circuit in the class action Parry v. SBC, 375 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.Conn. 2005). He was class counsel in a certified class action before the District of Connecticut in Cashman v. Dolce, 3:04CV106 (MRK) (D. Conn.). He is also counsel in two other potential class action ERISA cases before the District of Connecticut in Custer v. SBC, 3:05CV1444(SRU) (D.Conn.) and before the District of New Jersey in Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet, 06-cv-01838 (WJM)(D.N.J.).
Because of his experience as an ERISA law practitioner, Mr. Moukawsher has frequently been interviewed or consulted by journalists and scholars. He has published seven scholarly articles, including recent cover stories in the American Journal of Chiropractic and The Connecticut Lawyer and an article on corporate downsizing in both the Journal of Pension Planning & Compliance and the American Bar Association’s The Brief.
Mr. Moukawsher is an editor and contributing author of the ABA book on ERISA, Employee Benefits Law. He is a frequent speaker on ERISA law. Mr. Moukawsher lives in Mystic, Connecticut with his wife Elizabeth and sons Ted and Alex. |
|
| |
|
|
|
