Hedge Fund Reaches $7.9M Settlement of ERISA Lawsuit
A federal judge in Connecticut approved a $7.9 million settlement resolving claims that GWA LLC and its founder, financier George A. Weiss, mismanaged the company’s retirement plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The approval, issued September 19 by U.S. District Judge Omar A. Williams in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, ends the case originally brought by former GWA human resources head Beth Andrew-Berry two years ago.
The Complaint
The case concerned GWA’s alleged breach of its fiduciary duties by misusing employee retirement plan assets to further the firm’s own pecuniary interests, according to the original complaint.
“This is an exceptional recovery for a novel, first of its kind 401(k) ERISA class action,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of the ERISA and employee benefits practice at law firm Cohen Milstein, which represented the plaintiffs, in a statement. “GWA’s 401(k) strategy was extremely risky and egregious, compounded by the fact that the plan was 100% invested in its own hedge fund strategies. This settlement is a significant victory for the former employees and provides them meaningful relief, despite the fact that both defendants are now insolvent.”
The plaintiffs alleged that the GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan exclusively invested all of its assets in the Weiss Funds, specifically focusing on the flagship hedge fund Weiss Multi-Strategy Partners (Cayman) Ltd. and the Weiss Alternative Multi-Strategy Fund, which closely mirrored the hedge fund’s strategy.
Additionally, the plaintiffs asserted that the Weiss Mutual Fund was not a suitable investment due to its poor performance history, lack of market acceptance and unfavorable cost structure, making it an inadequate choice for the 401(k) plan.
The consequences of these investment practices allegedly resulted in participant accounts being valued at least 30% less than they would have been if the plan had been managed responsibly and in compliance with ERISA standards, the complaint alleged.
In April 2024, GWA LLC filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all its funds. Subsequently, in June 2025, co-defendant George Weiss also declared bankruptcy.
Plaintiffs’ Rewards
After covering attorneys’ fees, litigation costs and a service award for the lead plaintiff, each eligible plan participant is expected to receive an average payout of approximately $26,000.
Williams noted that the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate” given the complexity of ERISA litigation, the risks of proceeding to trial and the fact that both defendants had declared bankruptcy. An independent fiduciary also reviewed the terms and found them consistent with comparable other settlements.
The settlement class includes all participants and beneficiaries of the GWA 401(k) plan from July 2017 until the effective date of the settlement, excluding Weiss and his family. The final number of members was about 50% higher than initially estimated, according to the court filing.
No class members objected to the settlement itself, and more than 99% were successfully reached through mailed notices, the court order stated. At a fairness hearing earlier this month, only Andrew-Berry appeared in court. The judge took the lack of objections—particularly from what he described as a “relatively sophisticated” class of former hedge fund employees—as strong evidence of broad approval.
The court approved slightly more than $2.6 million in attorneys’ fees—one-third of the total settlement award—despite one objection that the amount was excessive. The judge rejected the claim, writing that contingency risks, the complexity of ERISA actions and the quality of counsel’s representation justified the award.
In addition, the court approved more than $193,000 in litigation costs, almost $44,000 in administrative expenses and a $45,000 service award to Andrew-Berry.
The judge noted that while the award was higher than typical for courts whose decisions are appealed to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, it was warranted because Andrew-Berry had discovered the alleged irregularities herself, attempted to resolve them internally and provided critical guidance throughout the litigation.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC represented the plaintiffs, while Goodwin Procter LLP and Miller & Chevalier represented the defendants.