Photo of Michael J. Francese

Michael J. Francese

As a partner in Covington’s employee benefits practice group, Mike Francese focuses on counseling clients in matters arising under their employee benefit plans and executive compensation arrangements with respect to ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and related federal and state laws.  He also represents clients before agencies and courts on both the federal and state level, and consults with them in connection with mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions.

Mike's practice covers a broad spectrum of employee benefit plans and programs, as well as a variety of executive compensation arrangements, such as:

tax-qualified defined benefit and defined contribution plans, including traditional and hybrid pension plans, 401(k) plans, profit-sharing plans, and ESOPs;
non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements, including top-hat plans, 457(f) arrangements for employees of non-profit employers, and other types of nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements;
equity-based compensation arrangements, including stock options, restricted stock, and phantom equity awards;
health and welfare plans, including cafeteria, medical, disability, and severance plans and arrangements; and
executive employment and consulting agreements, including change in control, and parachute payment arrangements.

Contact:Read more about Michael J. FranceseEmail

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.Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Pleading Standard for Prohibited-Transaction Claims under ERISA § 406(a)