While some aspects of the plaintiffs’ complaint have been dismissed, the core allegations in the complaint can now proceed to discovery and potentially to trial.
The litigation was originally focused on fiduciary breach allegations leveled against a hospital network—claims which have since been settled—but it also included separate accusations against Principal.
The complaint cites the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Hughes v. Northwestern University while arguing the plaintiffs have sufficient standing to allege breaches by plan fiduciaries.
The settlement includes both monetary and nonmonetary aspects.
The plaintiffs suggest the plan, its participants and beneficiaries have suffered ‘significant losses totaling millions of dollars,’ and a district court has now allowed their claims to proceed to discovery.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in Hughes v. Northwestern University say the Supreme Court’s ruling strengthens fiduciary protections for retirement plan investors, while those attorneys who more often serve ERISA class action defendants foresee a more muted impact.
The high court’s ruling states that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred in relying on the fact that plaintiff-participants had the ‘ultimate choice’ over their investments to excuse allegedly imprudent decisions by the plan sponsor.
The plaintiff in a 403(b) ERISA excessive fee lawsuit filed against Baptist Health South Florida has been ordered by a district court to enter an arbitration process.
The original lawsuit was dismissed in September, but the plaintiffs were given time to file an amended complaint, which they have now done.
Like the many other ERISA lawsuits filed against large financial service providers, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to administer the plan in the best interest of participants and failed to employ a prudent process.
Among other allegations, the plaintiffs claim Voya engaged in an imprudent process while selecting and retaining proprietary target-date funds and a stable value option.
The district court accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case based on the plaintiffs’ failure to state an actionable claim regarding the retirement plan fees they pay.
The lawsuit claims the veterinary hospital network’s retirement plan, which has more than $500 million in assets, should have paid lower fees for recordkeeping and administrative services.
Fiduciaries of the grocery chain’s 401(k) plan are accused of allowing unreasonably high fees for recordkeeping services and failing to disclose to plan participants fees associated with the plan.
In granting the defense’s motion for summary judgment, the court brings to a close one of the longest-running and most complicated ERISA lawsuits.
The ruling breaks from other district court orders that have held ERISA plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring claims regarding funds in which they did not personally invest.