The district court found "the mere fact that the plan included the affiliated funds—and defendants were aware of that fact—is not sufficient to charge them with constructive knowledge of their predecessors’ alleged improper selection process.”
"How does it make sense to say that if you are a dollar over-funded, there is no risk of harm to the participants, but if you are a dollar under-funded, there is risk of harm or wrongdoing? It’s an illogical way to analyze this issue,” the attorney said.
According to Democratic leaders in Congress, the Department of Labor appears to be doing little, if anything, to inform consumers about conflicts of interest in the advisory and brokerage industries.
The decision out of the 8th Circuit ties together the influential Supreme Court decisions known as Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer and Tibble v. Edison.
A federal court found plan fiduciaries acted with loyalty and prudence, and that plaintiffs failed to show the failure to have an investment policy in place, standing alone, proves imprudence.
Good candidates for outsourcing include plan sponsors who want to spend more time focused on plan design innovation and tracking outcomes of investment management and administrative oversight.
The judge determined that the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently suggest the prospect that a fiduciary breach occurred, and as a result they have been given leave to amend their complaint.
However, when pressed by a Democratic lawmaker from Ohio, DOL Secretary Alexander Acosta was not able to provide specific details about his agency’s collaboration with the SEC on advisory industry conflict of interest reforms.
Under the terms of a recently revealed settlement agreement, Vanderbilt 403(b) plan fiduciaries will have to contractually prohibit recordkeepers and other service providers from using plan participant data for the purposes of cross-selling.
A mixed-bag district court ruling in Colorado closely examines the investment policy statements and contracts which governed the relationship between an advisory firm and a retirement plan committee facing an ERISA lawsuit.
The court has ruled that the litigation can proceed to trial because SafeWay’s summary dismissal argument that the plaintiffs’ case is premised entirely on hindsight “misses the point.”
Fidelity faces a third lawsuit alleging the company collects “secret kickback payments” from mutual fund providers on its recordkeeping platform—claims the company strongly denies.
The appellate court decision tests ERISA’s restrictions on transactions between fiduciaries and non-fiduciary third parties, referred to as “parties in interest.”
The plan sponsor was previously ordered to make reforms such as using lower-cost share classes and conducting an open recordkeeping RFP; the final settlement includes $55 million in monetary compensation.
A decision by the Supreme Court on the question of what establishes “actual knowledge” of an alleged breach of fiduciary duty could have a big influence on how judges apply limitations periods in ERISA cases.
The defense benefited strongly from the fact that expert witness testimony given in favor of plaintiffs was rejected by the judge as not being fully relevant or credible.
A district court in California has issued a mixed ruling in a self-dealing lawsuit filed against Schwab Retirement Plan Services and other defendants.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has added fiduciary breach cases to the categories of disputes covered by the mediation program.
The district court had several times ruled against the firm in summary dismissal and discovery decisions—but the firm has prevailed against ERISA fiduciary breach claims after an 11 day trial.