PPL Corp. and Mass Brigham General Face ERISA Lawsuits

Imprudent investments and excessive fees were themes of lawsuits filed last week against retirement plan fiduciaries.


A proposed class action lawsuit was filed last week alleging that fiduciaries of the Consolidated 403(b) Plan of Mass General Brigham and Member Organizations failed to ensure investment and recordkeeping fees were not excessive.

According to the complaint, the health care system’s plan qualified as a “jumbo” plan and one of the largest in the United States. As such, the plaintiffs allege, its fiduciaries had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees charged to participant accounts.

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

The lawsuit claims that the fiduciaries “did not try to reduce the plan’s expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the plan to ensure it was prudent.” The defendants are accused of failing to objectively and adequately review the plan’s investments with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and of failing to control the plan’s recordkeeping costs.

In another court filing, fiduciaries of retirement plans sponsored by energy company PPL Corp. are accused of failing to act diligently and prudently by retaining a suite of “unproven collective investment trust [CIT] target-date funds [TDFs] as investment options in the plan, known as the Northern Trust Focus Funds.”

The complaint alleges that “the Focus Funds suffered from significant and ongoing quantitative deficiencies and managerial turnover resulting in massive underperformance relative to that of well-established, prudently managed, comparable target-date funds that were available to the plan.” The plaintiffs suggest that a prudent fiduciary would have removed the Focus Funds and replaced them with a prudent investment alternative. They say the fiduciaries’ breaches of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties cost participants who were invested in these funds millions of dollars in losses.

The PPL lawsuit also says that because of the plan’s size, the fiduciaries had “tremendous bargaining power to demand lower fees.”

Northern Trust is not listed as a defendant in the lawsuit against PPL, but it is facing a lawsuit about the use of the Focus Funds in its own retirement plan, among other claims.

The pace of ERISA litigation shows no signs of slowing in the new year. Also last week, a lawsuit was filed against fiduciaries of Milliman Inc.’s 401(k) plan alleging that the poor performance of a suite of target-risk funds resulted in a nearly $250 million loss to participant accounts.

In a statement to PLANADVISER, PPL said: “PPL offers comprehensive benefits programs for employees, including voluntary 401(k) plans that enable employees to set aside a portion of their pay to save for retirement. Participants may select their own investments from a diverse array of investment options available in the plans. 

“PPL’s 401(k) plans are administered by Fidelity Investments, undergo a rigorous evaluation annually to compare costs and investment performance against industry benchmarks, and are regularly reviewed by an independent board to ensure they align with our investment policy and meet plan objectives. 

“We are confident in the soundness of our retirement plans and believe the fees associated with those plans are reasonable. We’re confident we’ve acted lawfully and appropriately at all times. Any claims to the contrary are entirely without merit.”

Mass General Brigham has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Educating Participants About Lifetime Income Projections Is Key

Retirement plan advisers and plan sponsors are ramping up support so participants will understand newly implemented projected lifetime income illustrations on their plan statements. 

Plan sponsors and advisers are preparing for defined contribution (DC) plan participants’ reactions to the lifetime income estimates that will be coming on their plan statements this year with custom tools and planning advice, as well as investment menu evaluations.   

In 2019’s Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act, Congress required that DC plans provide retirement plan participants with projections illustrating monthly retirement income amounts generated from their accumulated retirement savings. The Department of Labor (DOL)’s interim final rule on the matter, published in September, requires that participants’ projected income be illustrated as an account balance conversion to a lifetime income annuity.

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

“We expect that it’s an important framing for retirees and all DC participants to think about their account balance in terms of projected income, but it’s also going to lead to many emotions and needs for further support,” says Josh Cohen, PGIM head of DC client solutions.

By Cohort

PGIM’s research team examined three scenarios for how workers are likely to react to the income illustrations and how those reactions are likely to impact plan participant behavior. The research considered early career savers seeing low illustrations in the first year of disclosures; early career savers seeing modest but steady year-over-year progress; and near-retirees seeing projected income that’s higher than actual income.

“It’s going to create a pretty steep learning curve for most participants out there, especially because it’s going to involve some pretty complex calculations,” says David Morehead, vice president, Retirement Benefits Group.

For younger participants who have not accumulated large balances, the projections could be a wake-up call, as the research showed that, overall, 68% of participants’ responses were negative. The survey also asked respondents if they were likely to take action with respect to their retirement plans after seeing the numbers, and 79% responded they are likely to act.  

Among early career savers, 50% of responses were negative, and 78% said they were likely to act.

“The challenge with the methodology that is going to be used is that it really reflects assumptions that are going to underplay what the retirement income is likely to be for most people, because the projection doesn’t consider the future contributions that someone might make or the future earnings,” says Amy Reynolds, a partner at Mercer. “Therefore, it is not going to look sufficient from the perspective of most participants, and the issue for most sponsors and recordkeepers is really that they have been providing information historically, through the recordkeepers’ and modeling tools and other services, to help participants to model and estimate retirement income while considering some of these projections and changes.”

She adds, “That’s really the challenge, to help people reconcile what they see on these statements versus what they’ve probably seen on the websites that they’ve historically been accessing.”

The PGIM research found reactions for older participants were 79% negative, and 74% said they would act.

In the survey, near-retirees were presented with a hypothetical scenario where the participants had accumulated $200,000 of savings in a DC plan. Participants then received statements indicating that the amount will generate $966 in monthly retirement income, payable for life, but under the actual, non-annuitized figure that assumes a yearly 4% withdrawal, monthly payments will only be $666.

Older participants and near-retirees receiving the projected disclosures are likely to see projected incomes that are higher than their actual incomes will be. That’s because the mandated DOL calculation method assumes that the participant’s full balance has been annuitized.

“The reason it is less is that financial experts suggest withdrawing only 4% of your initial retirement balance annually if you wish to retain access to your assets and have a good chance of not running out of money in retirement,” PGIM research states. “The amount communicated in your statements was based on annuitizing your full account balance.”

Supporting Participants

Plan sponsors and advisers are preparing for participants to receive the lifetime income statements with tools, educational sessions and customized advice targeted to specific cohorts, sources said.

Jeff Cimini, head of institutional product at Voya Financial, says the recordkeeper—along with the DOL lifetime income projected disclosure—will send participants supplemental projection information that includes lifetime income projections based on future contributions, earnings and investment returns.

“The regulations that the DOL put forth allow for an additional projection, a supplemental projection, which allows recordkeepers to continue doing what we did in the past, which is to make assumptions about the future that can help participants understand if they continue their behavior, what their retirement can look like,” Cimini says.

Voya is focusing on continuing its support efforts for recordkeepers, outreach and education to help plan sponsors manage participant reactions, Cimini says.

“One is making sure that the advisers and the recordkeepers and those that work with participants are aware of the methodology, so that when participants have questions, which we assume they will, that we are giving them good answers for why that DOL projection is on their statements and how the supplemental projection ties to that,” he says. “And then we have our counselors ready to talk to participants who have questions about ‘How can I improve my outcome?’ We’re just preparing for a fair amount of questions and really preparing for questions and inquiries that we’ll get that are sparked as a result of this additional income projection tied to the DOL requirements.”

PGIM will marshal resources from the PGIM DC Solutions group and focus on offering plan sponsors additional customized tools, advice capabilities and investments geared toward generating retirement income, Cohen says.

“When we look at what’s typically on a menu versus what’s needed for retirement income, most menus are short on options such as additional fixed-income options, longer duration, more inflation-sensitive asset classes and income-producing asset classes such as commodities, real assets and real estate,” he says. “It’s bringing more of those types of options into the menu.”

Morehead, of Retirement Benefits Group, says advisers can support plan sponsors in several ways to help participants navigate the new retirement income projections.

His retirement plan advisory firm will use educational materials, webinars and other forums, as well as financial wellness tools and retirement income planning calculators to help participants with the changes.

“One of the biggest [priorities] is to create awareness of these changes,” he says. “We’re going to be ramping up our educational sessions with the majority of our clients. The best thing to do is be proactive.”

 

 

«