A district court found plaintiffs met the requirements of ERISA Rule 23(a) and the class is maintainable under at least one of the subdivisions of ERISA Rule 23(b).
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) restored more than $1.1 billion to retirement plans, health plans and other welfare benefit plans in 2017.
With the new opinion, the district court seeks to make clear where the line is when it comes to pleading standards in ERISA lawsuits.
For one thing, a federal court judge found the defendants provide no authority supporting their contention that a plan document executed after the participant has ceased participation in the plan can bind the participant to arbitration.
Plan sponsors cite a number of reasons for being unlikely to offer an annuity-type product in the near term; top reasons include the belief that it is unnecessary or not a priority, and being uncomfortable or unclear about the fiduciary implications.
Along with non-monetary relief, Allianz will pay $12 million into a common fund for the benefit of class members, to be allocated pro rata among the members in proportion to their account balances in the plan during the relevant period.
On the motion for reconsideration of its previous choice to rule against summary dismissal, the court is quite skeptical. It has agreed, on the other hand, to stay the proceedings ahead of a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
So far, reporting seems to suggest that the numerous fraudulent comments submitted to DOL regarding the fiduciary rule were done so mainly with stolen or outright fake identities of individuals, rather than, say, those of employers or financial services providers.
Following news of Preston Rutledge’s approval by the full Senate to head the Employee Benefits Security Administration, several retirement industry advocacy groups voiced their support in short statements.
The debate started when the American Council for Capital Formation published a sharply written report alleging that, as the group puts it, “CalPERS has prioritized relatively poor performing environmental, social and governance [ESG] investments at the expense of other investments more likely to optimize returns.”
Drawing on a number of recent decisions, the district court ruled the plaintiffs did not adequately describe how the offering of a fund in which they did not invest caused a non-speculative injury.
Data shows about one-fourth of nonprofit plan sponsors are not aware of what comprises a formal fee policy statement, and half of respondents are unfamiliar with the tenants of fee levelization.
In the years ahead, Corporate Insight expects a very strong focus on the issue of cybersecurity among retirement plan providers and investment managers, putting the impetus on plan sponsors to ensure they understand the evolving landscape.
Preston Rutledge seems to be enjoying relatively little opposition as he moves closer to becoming the Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration—a key position in the federal government tasked with enforcing ERISA.
Investors are generally capable of looking out for their own interests and should have freedom of access to shop the financial services marketplace for retirement income guarantees, the Insured Retirement Institute argues in a new comment letter to the SEC.
The lawsuit contended that among defined contribution plans with more than $1 billion in assets, the average plan has costs equal to 0.33% of assets per year; in 2013, total fees for the Fujitsu plan amounted to approximately 0.88% of plan assets.
The complaint seeks to state a claim—without relying on hindsight—by arguing the underperformance of a large cap fund was “virtually guaranteed because it contained a serious design flaw from inception.”
“IHI cannot delegate fully its statutory responsibilities under ERISA,” a federal judge says in her opinion.
This is true for members of administrative and investment committees alike.