- J.D.The University of Michigan Law Schoolcum laude2005
- B.A.Gettysburg College1997
Mr. Khalil has over a decade of experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex civil litigation, principally in cases involving ERISA and the Affordable Care Act. He has represented plan sponsors, administrators, participants, and service providers in a wide array of ERISA actions involving health and welfare plans, as well as ERISA retirement plans (both defined benefit and 401(k) plans). These cases frequently turn on novel, nuanced, and highly complex questions. For example, Mr. Khalil has litigated extensively before trial and appellate courts questions such as:
- When medical providers are authorized to bring suits over plan benefits under ERISA and the ACA;
- Whether disgorgement is a form of appropriate equitable relief available in a breach of fiduciary duty suit;
- The showing necessary for the PBGG to terminate a pension plan; and
- The fiduciary responsibilities associated with allocating a terminated plan's assets under Title IV of ERISA.
One of Mr. Khalil's strengths is his effectiveness in successfully litigating discovery disputes against the government, particularly those involving assertions of executive privilege. His notable successes have included:
- Obtaining an order overcoming the assertion of the presidential communications privilege by the Office of the President;
- Defeating a motion by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to quash document and deposition subpoenas;
- Overcoming numerous assertions of the deliberative process privilege by federal agencies; and
- Obtaining an order holding that a government agency had waived the right to assert any privileges over tens of thousands of documents.
Mr. Khalil is also deeply committed to making Miller & Chevalier an exceptional law firm by serving in several capacities, such as:
- Former Vice Chair of the Employee Benefits Department (2015-2019);
- Member of the Lateral Partner Committee;
- Fellow to the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (2018); and
- Member of the firm's Diversity and Inclusion Committee (2015-2017).
- Pa. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Independence Hosp. Indem. Plan, Inc. (7th Cir. No. 14-2322) (Part of legal team representing defendant health insurer in appeal before Seventh Circuit, obtaining a reversal of trial court's novel holding that an in-network healthcare provider qualified as an ERISA beneficiary with standing to sue under § 502 of ERISA. See Pa. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Indep. Hosp. Indem. Plan, Inc., 802 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2015)).
- DB Healthcare, LLC, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona (9th Cir. 14-16518) (Represented defendant health insurer in district court proceedings (see DB Healthcare, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ariz. Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93170 (D. Ariz. July 8, 2014)) and subsequent appeal before Ninth Circuit in which plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by healthcare providers alleging claims under ERISA and the Affordable Care Act. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that medical providers are not ERISA beneficiaries and can only bring ERISA lawsuits in a derivative capacity. The court found that the providers in this case lacked derivative standing because the assignment forms they received from ERISA plan beneficiaries were not legally valid, due to anti-assignment provisions in the plans. This decision is the fifth in a series of federal appeals decisions from the Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh circuits, all of which ruled that medical providers do not qualify as ERISA beneficiaries. Miller & Chevalier also represented the prevailing Blue Cross Blue Shield Plan in the Seventh Circuit case).
- Black, et al. v. PBGC, et al. (E.D. Mich. No. 2:09-cv-13616) (Ongoing representation of retiree association in lawsuit against the PBGC, alleging that the PBGC's termination of the Delphi Salaried Plan in 2009 violated Title IV of ERISA).
- Lewis v. PBGC, Case 14-3838 (D.DC No. 1:15-cv-01328 ) (Ongoing representation of retired Delta Airlines pilots against the PBGC, challenging the PBGC actions as Plan trustee).
- Treasury v. Black, (D.C. Cir. Nos. 17-5142, 5164) (having obtained orders from the district court that our client's civil litigation need for Treasury documents was sufficient to overcome the government's assertion of the presidential communications privilege, we are now defending those orders on appeal).
- In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig. (2d Cir. Case No. 12-4671) (Part of legal team representing large group of health insurers in appeal of district court's Rule 23(b)(2) class certification and settlement of antitrust class action, with our objection highlighting specific concerns of settlement to insurance companies in light of their coverage obligations under the ACA).
- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan v. Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. (Supreme Court Case No. 14-168) (Part of legal team representing various trade organizations arguing that the Court should grant certiorari in the case to address uncertainty created by the Sixth Circuit's decision for liability for third-party administrators of ERISA plans).
- Represented financial services provider in ERISA "revenue sharing" case (motion to dismiss granted at Jerre Daniels-Hall, et al. v. National Education Association, et al., Case No. C O7-5339RBL (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2008)).
- Represented plan sponsor in ERISA "stock drop" case (motion to dismiss granted with leave to amend at In re Coca-Cola Enters., ERISA Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44991 (N.D. Ga. June 19, 2007); motion to dismiss granted with prejudice at In re Coca-Cola Enters., ERISA Litig., Case No. 1:06-CV-0953 (TWT) (N.D. Ga. March 21, 2008)).
- Represented insurance provider in ERISA "retained asset account" case. Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., No. 2:08-cv-00161(N.D. Miss. filed Jan. 8, 2009).
- Represented financial service provider in litigation arising from allegations of a fraudulent pharmaceutical cost-reporting scheme involving a third party benefits administrator. Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union Welfare Fund v. Sav-RX, LLC and the Union Labor Life Insurance Company, No. 07CV916 (N.D. Ill. filed Feb. 16, 2007).
- Legal 500: Labor & Employment: ERISA Litigation, 2016 - 2019
- Legal 500: Labor & Employment: Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation: Design, 2019
- Washington, DC Super Lawyers®: Rising Star, Employee Benefits, 2014 - 2016
District of Columbia
Michael Khalil commented on the likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to review the Eighth Circuit's decision in Thole v. US Bank.
Miller & Chevalier is pleased to announce that the firm was recognized as a "Gold Level Donor" to the DC Bar's Raising the Bar campaign.
Miller & Chevalier is pleased to announce that the firm was one of only five law firms in Washington, DC, to increase its commitment level to the D.C. Bar's Raising the Bar campaign.
Washington, DC, May 30, 2018 – Miller & Chevalier Chartered announced today that the firm received practice and individual rankings in the 2018 edition of Legal 500 United
Michael N. Khalil and Anthony F. Shelley will present The ERISA Industry Committee's (ERIC) webinar titled, "Legal Developments in Employee Benefits," on January 31, 2018.
In the 2019 edition of the International Comparative Legal Guide to: Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Miller & Chevalier Members authored three chapters: John Eustice and Michael Khalil autho
In this article, Michael Khalil discusses what companies can learn from the
Ten years to the day after Tibble v. Edison International was filed, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S.
Reviewing the case for the third time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Committee1 held that the fiduciaries of the R.J.
In the long-running litigation involving the ABB, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the Plan) – the complaint was filed in 2006 – and following the second appeal, in Tussey v. ABB, Inc. (ABB II), No.