S. Derrin Watson, a pension attorney and educator, has been answering questions from ERISApedia clients for the last year and has edited and selected over 400 ASK responses to subscribers to add to the eSource.
Tag: Employee Retirement Income Security Act
“Saxon Angle” from PLANSPONSOR magazine touches on timely issues of the day.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the facts alleged are insufficient to support a plausible inference of breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of the duty of prudence, or that a prohibited transaction took place.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously concluded that the challenge to the management of the University of Southern California’s retirement plans fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreements because the claims were brought on behalf of the plans, not the individuals.
A lawsuit alleges a health care system in North Carolina falsely claims to be a governmental entity, allowing it to dodge ERISA requirements and protections for its retirement and health plans.
It has only been about a year and a half since large U.S. universities became the target of ERISA lawsuits, making for a fresh crop of claims and defense strategies that matter for all types of DC plans.
The agency says plan sponsors have fiduciary responsibility for selecting and monitoring Retirement Clearinghouse’s Auto-Portability Solution, but once assets have been transferred from a plan sponsor’s retirement plan, it is no longer a fiduciary with respect to those assets.
The agency is inviting public comment on the proposed exemption and encourages additional proposals.
The question for the Supreme Court is whether the plaintiff or the defendant bears the burden of proof on loss causation under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 409(a).
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found “several errors of law in the district court’s rulings.”
The lawsuit not only calls out Fidelity’s use of all proprietary funds in its 401(k) investment lineup, but also accuses it of not negotiating for revenue sharing rebates, not using the lowest-cost share classes, not investigating alternative investment vehicles and not evaluating stable value fund options when its money market funds poorly performed.
Leaving only the prohibited transaction claim to move forward, a federal judge found most defendants were not fiduciaries with respect to the claim and dismissed all but the plan’s investment committee as defendants.
A DOL investigation found the business owner used benefit plan contributions for corporate and personal expenses.
The DC plan trust of Frontier Communications was 219-times more concentrated in Verizon stock than defendants felt was appropriate for the pension plan for which the company bore the investment risk, plaintiffs allege in a new stock drop lawsuit.
Several defendants, including M&T Bank and certain Wilmington Trust subsidiaries were found not to be fiduciaries and dismissed from the case; however excessive fee allegations and a prohibited transaction claim were moved forward against the bank’s retirement plan committee.
For its part, Schwab says the appellate court’s decision, which effectively invalidates agreements to arbitrate ERISA Section 502(a)(2) claims, conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit precedent interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and ERISA.
While the first lawsuit focused on excessive recordkeeping, administrative and investment fees, the new lawsuit focuses specifically on the university’s practices with regard to revenue sharing.
The bank has agreed to pay $21.9 million to settle charges it benefited from including proprietary funds in its 401(k) plan.
In a decision granting victory to New York University, a federal judge noted “deficiencies in the Committee’s processes—including that several members displayed a concerning lack of knowledge relevant to the Committee’s mandate.” She has now been asked to amend the decision to remove committee members.