The DOL has issued an advisory opinion letter in response to a request by Retirement Clearinghouse (RCH), for the Department’s opinion on the status of certain parties as “fiduciaries” as a result of actions undertaken as part of RCH’s Auto-Portability Program.
The request comes in a notice of proposed exemption from prohibited transactions for Retirement Clearinghouse's auto-portability solution.
Putnam Investments has asked for a stay in a case accusing it of self-dealing in its 401(k) plan so it can petition the U.S. Supreme Court regarding whether a plaintiff or an accused fiduciary has the burden of proving whether or not an ERISA fiduciary breach caused a loss.
Finding "errors of law" in a district court's decision, the 1st Circuit remanded the duty of prudence claims for review.
In addition to self-dealing allegations, the complaint calls out Fidelity for not negotiating revenue sharing refunds for its 401(k) plan participants and not considering stable value options for its plan investment lineup, among other things.
Once a federal judge dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims, she found most defendants were not fiduciaries with respect to the remaining claim.
A Maryland business owner will serve one year and one day of imprisonment and pay more than $350,000 in restitution for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The lawsuit seems keenly aware of the poor record other such complaints have had in federal court since the crucial Supreme Court ruling in Fifth-Third vs. Dudenhoeffer—focusing its arguments more on the imprudent concentration of employer stock as opposed to inflated valuations.
Wilmington Trust subsidiaries were found not to be fiduciaries, but other claims against the M&T Bank retirement plan committee were moved forward.
Mercer offers recommendations for retirement plan sponsors to search for missing participants.
The appellate court upheld a district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreements because the claims were brought on behalf of the ERISA plans, not the individuals.
The case has already bounced back and forth several times between the district and appellate courts, testing complicated questions about conflicting language in summary plan descriptions and formal plan documents.
The new lawsuit alleges the university engaged in prohibited transactions when it used revenue sharing from plan investments to pay for HR staff salaries and fringe benefits.
Echoing its original ruling, the district court’s second take concludes the lead plaintiff’s underlying allegations do not provide “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
While not disagreeing with a federal court judge's decision, the plaintiff says the judge's findings about certain plan committee members warrants her ordering them to be removed.
The panel concludes that the dispute against the University of Southern California fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreements that the participants signed.
The case arose from Manhattan Ford’s withdrawal from the UAW Local 259 Pension Fund, and an arbitrator’s calculation of about $2.55 million in withdrawal liability for the employer.
Under the paradigm created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case known as Fifth-Third v. Dudenhoeffer, plaintiffs continue to have difficulty proving standing in ERISA stock drop cases.
The settlement agreement resolves a civil suit brought by the DOL, alleging Cactus Feeders Inc. ESOP fiduciaries failed to fulfill their obligations under ERISA during a December 2010 stock transaction.