Biogen Faced With Lawsuit About Use of Active TDF Suite

The lawsuit is one of many filed recently claiming that the use of an index suite of Fidelity TDFs is more prudent.

Drugmaker Biogen Inc. is now on the list of companies challenged in Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuits for allegedly selecting and retaining high-cost, poorly performing investment options in their 401(k) plans.

Specifically, the complaint against Biogen and its 401(k) plan committee says the defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duties by failing to fully disclose the expenses and risk of the plan’s investment options to participants; allowing unreasonable expenses to be charged to participants; and selecting, retaining, and/or otherwise ratifying high-cost and poorly performing investments, instead of offering more prudent alternative investments that were available at the time investments were chosen for plan, as well as during the class period.

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

Biogen told PLANADVISER it has no comment about the lawsuit.

Much of the complaint is dedicated to challenging the plan’s offering of the Fidelity Freedom Funds target-date fund (TDF) suite. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to compare the actively managed Fidelity Freedom Funds to the passively managed Freedom Index Funds TDF suite and consider their respective merits and features. The complaint says the actively managed TDF suite was riskier and more expensive than the index suite.

As with similar lawsuits that have previously been filed, the Biogen complaint delves into the underlying investments and glide path of the TDF choices, and says the active suite allocates approximately 1.5% more of its assets to riskier international equities than the index suite. The active suite also has higher exposure to classes such as emerging markets and high yield bonds.

The fees charged by the active suite are many multiples higher than the index suite’s “industry-leading low costs,” the complaint states. “While the Institutional Premium share class for each target year of the index suite charges a mere 8 basis points [bps] (0.08%), the K share class of the active suite—which the plan offers—has expense ratios ranging from 42 basis points (0.42%) to 65 basis points (0.65%).”

The lawsuit also claims that using a start date of January 1, June 30 or December 31, 2014, the index suite has outperformed the active suite to date.

The remainder of the lawsuit calls out what it says are “additional objectively imprudent investment options.”

Multiple lawsuits have been filed recently that question the offering of the actively managed Fidelity Freedom Funds to retirement plan participants.

ERISA Excessive Fee Suit Filed Against NVIDIA Corp.

Allegations in the lawsuit mirror those of the many excessive fee suits filed against retirement plan sponsors.

An Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) excessive fee suit has been filed against fiduciaries of computer graphics and artificial intelligence (AI) company NVIDIA Corp.’s 401(k) plan.

The complaint against NVIDIA, its board of directors and its 401(k) plan committee says the plan’s assets under management (AUM) qualify it as a large plan in the defined contribution plan (DC) marketplace, with substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against participants’ investments. However, it says the defendants 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.

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

The lawsuit says the defendants breached the duties they owed to the plan and its participants by failing to objectively and adequately review the plan’s investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and by maintaining certain investments in the plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories.

In addition, the complaint says that, in many instances, the defendants failed to use the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the plan and failed to consider certain collective investment trusts (CITs) available during the class period “as alternatives to the mutual funds in the plan, despite their lower fees and materially similar investment objectives.” The complaint notes that in 2018, the plan switched to the CIT versions of the T. Rowe Price target-date funds (TDFs). But it claims “this was too little too late as the damages suffered by plan participants to that point had already been baked in.”

NVIDIA declined to comment about the lawsuit.

«