The dispositive question is not whether the claimants were employees but whether, considering them as employees, they were eligible to participate in an ERISA plan according to the specific terms of the plan under consideration.
The text of the decision includes lengthy discussion of all 14 counts of ERISA fiduciary breaches, and why each is capable of surviving the defendant’s motions to dismiss.
Commenting on the decision, Segal Consulting says it is “consistent with every other decision handed down in similar cases except for one,” the Southern District of New York Court’s decision in The New York Times Company v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’-Publishers’ Pension Fund, which is being appealed.
Ruling in favor of a detailed motion to dismiss filed by defendants, the court cites a long list of precedent-setting cases, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer.
The text of the new decision says the second amended complaint has failed because “it is an attempt to replead dismissed counts,” and because it includes an entirely new cause of action, violation of the Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organizations Act.
Industry stakeholders immediately offered their thoughts on the complex regulatory saga that has surrounded the now-defeated DOL fiduciary rule; depending on their position in the industry and their particular client service philosophy, some providers are hailing this step as a victory, while others are bemoaning it.
Understanding the opportunities associated with 3(21) and 3(38) fiduciary services—and the key differences between them—can help ensure the best use of the retirement plan committee’s time and resources.
The mixed ruling grapples with binding circuit court guidance and reaches quite different conclusions regarding various allegations of prohibited transactions and fiduciary breaches.
According to the text of the complaint, the act that created the California Secure Choice program “violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because it is expressly preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.”
The district court’s new decision comes after its previous move denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs’ claims, which cover a variety of fiduciary breach allegations; a new ruling is now forthcoming.
According to the DOL and FBI, two former executives of First Farmers Financial produced false documents and sent them to a Milwaukee investment firm to support “sham loans,” causing the firm’s clients, including ERISA retirement plans, to suffer nearly $180 million in losses.
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.