The lawsuit questions the selection of underlying investments for the Principal LifeTime Hybrid Collective Investment Funds, alleging Principal used proprietary investment vehicles, rather than other investment vehicles, and share classes with higher fees.
Tag: retirement plan participant lawsuits
An amici curiae brief filed by the American Council on Education and other higher education associations details the history of higher education 403(b) plans.
Former committee members for the pension plan of St. Elizabeth Medical Center moved to have themselves dismissed from a lawsuit challenging the church plan status of the pension plan, but a federal judge declined to dismiss them from a count regarding funding of the plan.
In addition to a monetary payment of $4.75 million, the bank agreed to non-monetary terms regarding payment and vesting of matching contributions to its 401(k) plan.
Just as another court did in a similar complaint against John Hancock, brought by the same plaintiffs, the 9th Circuit ultimately found Transamerica was not acting as a fiduciary when negotiating fees and collecting those fees.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Fidelity’s decision to obtain more secure wrap coverage for the stable value fund was reasonable.
The court found participant claims did not meet standards set forth in Fifth Third Bank v. Dudenhoeffer.
However, a federal judge certified subclasses on the imprudent investment claims because class representatives were not all invested in the 401(k) funds challenged.
The complaint alleges fiduciaries of Mutual of Omaha’s 401(k) plan violated their fiduciary duties by selecting numerous investment options because they paid fees to Mutual of Omaha or its subsidiaries.
The plaintiffs claim plan fiduciaries repeatedly failed to monitor the share classes of mutual fund investments and to substitute less expensive share classes of mutual funds for more expensive ones.
Allegations against Cammack LaRhette Advisors contend it gave “flawed advice” to plan fiduciaries regarding investments, which Cammack denies.
The appellate court agreed with a lower court that plaintiffs did not meet pleading standards set forth in the Supreme Court ruling in Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer.
On the motion for reconsideration of its previous choice to rule against summary dismissal, the court is quite skeptical. It has agreed, on the other hand, to stay the proceedings ahead of a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
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.
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.