The case already made it once to the Supreme Court which helped to clarify what it means to be a “church plan” run by a principal-purpose organization under ERISA—but the underlying facts of the lawsuit are still being fought over in district court.
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.
The court holds that bundling services or revenue sharing are common and acceptable investment industry practices that frequently inure to the benefit of ERISA plans.
The court granted the Principal defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts in a case questioning guaranteed investment contract arrangements.
A case set to go to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision about who bears the burden of proof when fiduciary harm is alleged in ERISA cases has been settled. Two legal experts weigh in.
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.
As in other recent stock drop litigation decisions, the plaintiff here ultimately failed to jump the high hurdle for standing set by Fifth-Third vs. Dudenhoeffer.
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.
A plan participant relied on language in the SPD regarding eligibility for benefits, and the appellate court found the SPD inaccurately portrayed provisions of the plan document.
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.
The new ruling in Barrett vs. Pioneer does little to resolve the fundamental issues at hand, offering some points of victory to both sides and implying a new amended version of the complaint is welcome and likely.