Fund mismanagement, excessive recordkeeping fees and improper fees to Financial Engines were among allegations in the original complaint.
Putnam had asked the high court whether the plaintiff or the defendant bears the burden of proof on loss causation under ERISA to determine “whether showing that particular investment options did not perform as well as a set of index funds selected by the plaintiffs with the benefit of hindsight, suffices as a matter of law to establish 'losses to the plan.'”
The plaintiffs say defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the plan, and failed to consider collective trusts, commingled accounts, or separate accounts as alternatives to the mutual funds in the plan, despite their lower fees.
Advisers share ideas for advisers to help small business owners and those who are self-employed save for retirement.
A judge previously found eliminating ESOP participants’ right to invest in company stock is not a violation of ERISA’s anti-cutback provisions, but forcing participants with balances greater than $5,000 out of the plan may be.
Case documents note the settlement has only been reached after “extensive litigation, lengthy discovery and protracted arm’s-length negotiations with the assistance of a national mediator.”
Employees of the grocery chain accuse their employer of acting imprudently in the selection of retirement plan investment options and of failing to monitor the services and fees paid.
The motion cites as one reason for settlement “probable costs, in both time and money, of continued litigation.”
A new lawsuit filed against Ardent Health Services closely mirrors many of the ERISA challenges filed in 2019.
M&T Bank or its insurers will also pay a gross settlement amount of $20,850,000 into a common fund for the benefit of class members.
With regard to “improper selection and monitoring of plan service providers,” the lawsuit specifically names a broker/dealer representative whom it says was terminated in 2014 for “failure to follow firm policies and industry regulations.”
The university argues that other courts would have required more than an appellate court did in its lawsuit to state a plausible claim.
Among other allegations, the national work uniform provider is accused of permitting high-cost mutual funds to persist on the retirement plan menu while cheaper but otherwise identical funds were available.
While not divided across political lines, the parties in Sulyma v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee view the question of what establishes “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach under ERISA very differently.
The court docket shows that, prior to the Notice of Settlement, the court had granted the plaintiff extended time to file his amended complaint.
The high court's decision lets stand a ruling that Great-West, as a non-fiduciary party in interest was not liable for alleged ERISA violations.
A wide-ranging ERISA fiduciary breach complaint suggests the firm failed to adequately monitor fees and permitted unnecessary, excess fees on the investment menu.
After years of litigation, the plaintiffs and defendants have jointly moved for entry of an order referring the case to mediation before a neutral third party.
The lawsuit alleges that GoalMaker served Prudential’s interests at the expense of participants’ by funneling retirement savings into proprietary investment products and into investments that paid revenue sharing to Prudential.