The text of the complaint includes substantial detail about the inner workings of the Home Depot retirement plan, and its relationships with advice providers Financial Engines and, later, Alight Financial Advisors.
According to multiple underlying complaints, which can now proceed to a consolidated trial, all of the several dozen mutual funds offered by the plan during the proposed class period were managed by Franklin Templeton or its subsidiaries.
The fiduciary governance group is designed to counsel investment committees and service providers, with a focus on avoiding and responding to fiduciary breach litigation, among other topics.
A federal district court has ruled a multiemployer pension fund's use of the "Segal Blend" rate when assessing a member's withdrawal liability was, in this instance, improper.
The central claim in the failed class action was that plaintiffs were forced to overpay significantly for advisory services; defendants successfully argued the plaintiff failed to state an actionable claim.
A district court has ruled that the complaint “does not sufficiently plead that the defendants were engaged in the conduct of an association-in-fact enterprise or that each defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity.”
To help ease the immediate concerns and confusion of clients, the law firm Stroock has published a helpful guide that dissects the latest fiduciary rule developments; on one attorney’s assessment, it actually is not that likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will get involved.
The fact that two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Fifth and the Tenth, have issued conflicting rulings about the propriety of the DOL’s process in creating and implementing a stricter fiduciary standard, leaves the retirement plan industry with a number of challenging questions.
Research reveals that less than half of sponsors believe that employees are solely responsible for their own retirement savings and investing decisions, but greater than three-quarters of participants feel that they have sole responsibility for these decisions.
Familiar allegations are leveled against Georgetown University in the latest example of defined contribution litigation to hit a big-ticket U.S. university.
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.
Brokers serving retirement plans and other institutional investors were accused of routing orders for equities to an offshore affiliate in Bermuda that “executed them on a riskless basis and opportunistically boosted profits by adding a mark-up or mark-down on the price of a security.”
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.
Proprietary fund lawsuits are viewed by plaintiffs’ firms as one of the types of excessive fee cases that are likely to get past motions to dismiss; and so it stands to reason that more—potentially many more—of these lawsuits are on the way.
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.
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.
Based on Great-West’s investigation and the work of FBI agents, it appears that unauthorized individuals have been fraudulently obtaining access to funds held in a small number of retirement accounts.
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.
Discussion in the new appellate decision lays out some important distinctions regarding the initial district court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit, weighing arguments of standing and mootness.