PPL Corp. Agrees to Settle Participant Lawsuit Over TDFs for $8.2M

Workers at the energy company claimed that PPL included underperforming target-date investments from Northern Trust in four of its retirement plans.

PPL Corp., an energy company headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania, has agreed to an $8.2 million class action settlement with workers who alleged the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by including “underperforming” target-date funds in four of PPL’s retirement plans.

The settlement will cover all participants (and their beneficiaries) in the four retirement plans between 2016 and 2020 who invested in a Northern Trust Focus Fund through an individual retirement plan account, according to the agreement.The gross settlement fund will pay for administrative expenses, $20,000 service awards for each of the six named plaintiffs and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Schlichter Bogard LLP is representing the current and former participants involved in the lawsuit, which was initially filed in 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

PPL selected Northern Trust Focus Funds as the plan’s TDF investment option in 2013, and the plaintiffs alleged that, since their inception, the Focus Funds consistently underperformed similar funds. Northern Trust, however, as the investment manager, was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Mia Roberts Perez had denied PPL’s motion to dismiss the case, Binder et al. v. PPL Corp. et al., in March 2024, but also stated that the plaintiffs’ claims were limited to “breaches that occurred from January 12, 2016 and thereafter.” As a result, Perez stated that “[d]efendants’ 2013 selection of the Focus Funds may not constitute a breach in itself, and the Court will disregard allegations that suggest the opposite.”

The plaintiffs also claimed that from 2016 to 2020, PPL selected and caused the plan to pay higher-cost shares of the Focus Funds when “identical, lower-cost shares were available.” PPL argued the plaintiffs had failed to create a “meaningful benchmark,” but Perez sided with plaintiffs, stating that PPL’s argument in the motion to dismiss was “displaced.”

The suit named the PPL Employee Savings Plan, PPL Deferred Savings Plan, PPL Employee Stock Ownership Plan and the LG&E and KU Savings Plan, all overseen by the same fiduciaries.

In June 2024, PPL Corp. moved for summary judgement, and the court denied the motion in December 2024. The parties reached the settlement agreement on January 14, and it was eventually signed on February 28.

In a memorandum in support of the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs requested that the court schedule a final fairness hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence, argument and any objections to the settlement agreement. The hearing is requested to be held no later than June 27.

Following the fairness hearing, the court must grant a final approval of the settlement.

OCIO Market Totals Nearly $4.8T, Says Chestnut Advisory

The largest OCIO provider is Mercer, with $548 billion in outsourced assets under management. Captrust is the fifth largest provider, at $209 billion.

The global outsourced CIO world is larger than most estimates, according to management consulting firm Chestnut Advisory. The firm estimated in a recent report that OCIO providers worldwide managed $4.79 trillion in 2024.

The largest OCIO providers included in the report include Mercer, with $548 billion in outsourced assets under management, Goldman Sachs Asset Management ($392 billion), BlackRock ($367 billion), Russell Investments ($327 billion) and Captrust ($209 billion).

The firm forecasted that the OCIO market will grow to $7.3 trillion in assets under management by 2029.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

However, estimating total OCIO assets under management is difficult due to the lack of standards, Chestnut Advisory writes. 

One of those standards defines an OCIO mandate. Some OCIO providers report different mandates and client types; some exclusively report institutional mandates; and others include private wealth mandates in their AUM. Some providers include legacy assets the firm did not allocate, while others do not, according to the report.  

“Our definition of an OCIO mandate is similar to the new definition proposed by the CFA Institute 1—an engagement [in which] the OCIO provides both strategic investment advice and investment management services in one engagement for a pool of assets,” the report stated. “This definition includes mandates for asset class sleeves, partial portfolios and full portfolios.”

Chestnut defines an OCIO mandate as an engagement in which a third party provides both strategic investment advice and investment management services for a pool of assets.

“There are many different types of mandates and clients included in the ‘OCIO AUM’ reported by providers today,” said Amanda Tepper, Chestnut Advisory’s co-managing partner, in a statement. “Our new definition of an OCIO mandate is a first step toward establishing an industry standard for OCIO AUM.”

Chestnut researched the 2024 AUM of 134 different OCIO firms, acknowledging “the AUM values on our list are imperfect” due to the varying standards. The report also stated it expects to include more European and Asian OCIO providers in future rankings.

«