Before certifying a class in the litigation, a federal judge determined that the named plaintiffs need not have invested in all funds challenged in the suit in order to represent 401(k) participants that invested in the funds.
Tag: retirement plan participant lawsuits
In the new complaint, participants attempt to offer more evidence for claims that were dismissed in another pending lawsuit.
The association argues that plaintiffs’ claims rely on hindsight, ask Fidelity to “follow the herd” and imply Fidelity should not align its interest with those of 401(k) plan participants.
The lawsuit suggests Nordstrom should have offered managed accounts or collective investment trusts to participants in its 401(k) plan.
The court found nothing in the plan document prevented the board of the Computer Sciences Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Key Executives to amend the plan to introduce a more volatile crediting rate than before.
The lawsuit accuses General Electric 401(k) plan fiduciaries of violating ERISA by offering and failing to monitor funds in the plan that were managed by the company’s investment management arm.
Noteworthy about the case is that a challenge to fees provided to the recordkeeper via an arrangement with Financial Engines is filed against the plan sponsor and not the recordkeeper as in other suits that have been dismissed.
Neither Xerox nor Financial Engines were acting in a fiduciary capacity relating to their fee arrangement, a court found.
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.
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.
The participant only prevailed in moving forward a claim that Verizon allowed an imprudent investment option to continue to be offered in its retirement plans.
The court basically decided Fidelity was not the fiduciary responsible for choosing to provide the advice and SDBA offerings to participants.
A federal district court ruled the plaintiffs did not meet all the pleading standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A federal court judge basically found many of the allegations stated normal business practices and the plaintiff did not offer enough arguments to support her claims.
The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and ordered their benefits be paid along with prejudgment interest.