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.
Similar to many excessive fee lawsuits filed against single-employer plans, the complaint accuses a multiemployer plan of failing to leverage its bargaining power to obtain lower investment and recordkeeping fees.
Among other adjustments viewed as vital to the expansion of open multiple employer plans, the bill would remove the “one bad apple” rule and the commonality requirement.
The results of a fiduciary primer quiz survey prove once again that institutional investing can be a tricky topic for even the most experienced investment committee members.
The idea is relatively simple: workers who do not yet have emergency savings will be directed to first fund a short-term savings account reserved for emergencies, before funding their retirement account.
A recent appellate court decision underscores the important differences in anti-cutback vesting requirements that exist between “top-hat” plans and retirement benefits for lower-compensated employees.
Throughout the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the plan’s fiduciaries’ lack of a systematic and unbiased review process caused participants to pay an unnecessarily high expense ratio for both Wells Fargo proprietary investments and nonproprietary investments.
The DOL alleged in all three cases that the firm approved transactions without undertaking the due diligence required of an ERISA fiduciary.
The suit alleges that defendants “breached their fiduciary duties by causing the plan to invest in funds offered and managed by Franklin Templeton, when better-performing and lower-cost funds were available.”
Employer and employee contributions to the multiple employer welfare arrangement were found in offshore Bermuda accounts.
Until the final rule’s publication in the Federal Register, the exact details and length of the second enforcement delay will remain unclear, but industry reports are widely discussing an 18-month delay.
Panelists at the 2017 PLANADVISER National Conference discuss the state of litigation in the retirement plan industry and lessons learned by lawsuit filings and court decisions.
The district court decision spells out a number of caveats impacting this type of ERISA litigation, explaining why it is dismissing some claims while permitting others to go to a full trial.
Not only does the lawsuit claim ConocoPhillips stock does not meet ERISA’s definition of “employer securities,” but it says participants suffered millions of dollars in losses as the stock price dropped dramatically.