Christopher Buch and Sean Power of Polsinelli have this article in JD Supra discussing the decision in Hensiek v.Board of Directors of Casino Queen Holding Company, Inc., No. 3:20-CV-377-DWD (7th Cir. January 25, 2021), denying a motion to compel arbitration for the reason that the amendment to the ESOP adding a mandatory and binding arbitration provision and class waiver was enacted without additional consideration being provided to the plan participants. As the authors explain, “[f]ollowing the reasoning outlined here, no amendment to a qualified plan will be valid unless participants receive something in return for such amendment (perhaps an enhanced benefit under the plan?).” They do note, however, that this issue currently is pending before the Seventh Circuit in another case.