J.P. Morgan 401(k) Funds Forfeiture Case Dismissed

A federal judge dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning a new case could not be filed in the district.

A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed a lawsuit against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. that alleged the company and plan fiduciaries improperly used forfeited funds in its 401(k) plan, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, presiding in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, dismissed the complaint in Daniel J. Wright v. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al. on June 13, ruling that J.P. Morgan fiduciaries properly followed the plan’s procedures.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Plan sponsors dealing with forfeited funds can either use the funds to reduce employer contributions to the plan or reduce plan expenses, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Still, the complaint alleged J.P. Morgan’s plan violated its duty of loyalty to participants under ERISA, which says fiduciaries cannot place corporate interests ahead of participants’ interests. Several other similar complaints in the last several years have made similar allegations.

“Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants’ use of forfeited funds to offset their own contributions comported with the terms of the plan. Nor could he,” Staton stated in the decision. “The plan explicitly grants defendants discretion to use forfeited funds for this purpose.”

Staton continued by stating that not offering plan sponsors discretion on how to use forfeiture funds for either offsetting plan costs or future matches goes against long-established law, calling the complaint “a novel theory.”

“The court is cognizant of plaintiff’s practical concerns about how defendants have chosen to design the plan and use forfeited amounts,” Staton stated. “But [the] plaintiff has failed to show how those choices violate the applicable law especially where, as here, it is undisputed that the terms of the plan give defendants discretion to use forfeitures to reduce their own contributions.”

The judge also dismissed claims that J.P. Morgan’s plan breached ERISA’s anti-inurement provision, engaged in any prohibited transactions or failed to monitor fiduciaries.

Staton dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning a new case could not be filed in the district.

PBGC Inspector General Warns of Added $6B in Costs to SFA Program

A recent court ruling allowed previously excluded terminated and insolvent plans to resubmit applications for special financial assistance, enacted by the American Rescue Plan Act.

A recent decision by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals could lead to an unexpected $6 billion cost under the Special Financial Assistance Program for multiemployer plans, a pension rescue program established in 2021, according to a risk advisory from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s inspector general.

The 2nd Circuit last month a previous PBGC denial of funds for the Bakery Drivers Local 550 and Industry Pension Fund, a New York-based terminated pension plan, opening the door for more than 100 previously ineligible multiemployer pension plans to apply for Special Financial Assistance, according to the risk advisory letter.

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

“This potential influx of plans as the statutory deadline for applications looms [on December 31] could challenge PBGC’s processes for a timely, thorough review and result in plans’ approval by default,” the letter stated.

Originally, terminated pension plans were not expected to qualify for special financial assistance, enacted by the American Rescue Plan Act to, among other things, rescue deeply underfunded multiemployer plans. The recent ruling reinterpreted that restriction, allowing previously excluded terminated and insolvent plans to resubmit applications.

As of March 2025, the PBGC had already received 202 applications for special financial assistance totaling $76.4 billion, with $68.6 billion approved, according to the letter. Now an estimated 123 terminated plans, many with extensive outstanding liabilities, could be added to that pool.

This new wave alone could cost approximately $6 billion, including $3.5 billion to repay the PBGC’s earlier loans to approximately 91 terminated plans, which the inspector general’s letter described as a potential waste.

“The repayment of $3.5 billion to PBGC would be a waste of taxpayer funds due to the positive current and projected financial condition of the multiemployer program,” the letter stated. “PBGC’s multiemployer program is in the best financial condition it has been in for many years. PBGC’s 2023 Projections Report states that PBGC’s multiemployer program is projected to ‘likely remain solvent for at least 40 years.’”

The PBGC is legally required to process each special financial assistance application within 120 days. Failure to do so results in automatic approval. With a significant influx of complex cases and months remaining before the application window closes, the inspector general warned the agency might not be able to fulfill this obligation in time.

To mitigate the potential fallout, the inspector general recommended that PBGC leadership work with its board of directors—the secretaries of labor, treasury and commerce—to seek legislative fixes. The letters proposed remedies included extending the filing deadline, waiving the repayment requirement for plans that previously received financial assistance and clarifying eligibility rules for terminated plans under the ARPA.

Although the PBGC’s financial outlook has significantly improved since the ARPA’s passage and the Government Accountability Office removed it from the high-risk list in 2023, the letter cautioned that the $3.5 billion repayment to the agency may no longer be justified.

“PBGC should continue to work with stakeholders to address the risk related to the appeals court decision impacting terminated multiemployer plans,” the letter stated.

«