Claims that survived included fiduciaries breached their duties of loyalty and prudence in their selection and monitoring of investments, fiduciaries failed to monitor other fiduciaries, plan trustees failed to remedy actions of predecessors, and the fiduciaries engaged in prohibited transactions.
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.
The Department of Labor’s (DOL)’s Employee Benefit Security Administration’s (EBSA)’s Plan Investment Conflicts (PIC) project investigates issues related to fiduciary service provider compensation and conflicts of interest in relation to plan asset vehicles.
A federal district court judge found that “while there were deficiencies in the Committee’s processes—including that several members displayed a concerning lack of knowledge relevant to the Committee’s mandate—plaintiffs have not proven that the Committee acted imprudently or that the Plans suffered losses as a result.”
However, a federal district judge found enough plausible evidence to move some duty of prudence claims forward.
Panelists discussed recent trends in fees and how providers can keep plan sponsors and participants up to date.
An announcement also notifies plan participants about revenue sharing paid to TIAA from some investment funds and says revenue sharing will be rebated to participants.
According to the settlement agreement, the university has already made changes to the investment lineup for its 403(b) plans.
The lawsuit claims the university failed to adequately benchmark fees, negotiate for better fees, or reveal true fees participants were paying.
Despite Wells Fargo's admission and resolution of an error, the Chattanooga Fire & Police Pension Fund wants an accounting of all compensation the bank received while it was trustee of the fund.
Only 19% of the small to mid-size business leaders said they are “very familiar” with their retirement plan fees, while 34% said they are “not at all familiar” with those fees.
The lawsuit alleges Yale defendants acted imprudently with regard to recordkeeping and investment fees for the plan.
In its motion, NYU asks that a federal district court judge issue an order “precluding from trial … any testimony, evidence, or arguments concerning claims that were previously dismissed by the court in its August 25, 2017, opinion.”
U.S. District Judge John A. Ross noted in his order that the arguments the defendants advance in support of dismissal are virtually identical to those raised in their original motion which was rejected by the court and, absent a new argument, he is led to the same conclusion not to dismiss the suit.
The fee has been reset to the 2017 level.
While dismissing a new complaint in the litigation about excessive fees in NYU's 403(b) plans, a federal judge also denied summary judgment in the original complaint, moving the case forward to trial.
The same group of plaintiffs previously filed a lawsuit against John Hancock with similar allegations and a similar result.
After the plaintiff’s employment at Siemens concluded, Siemens sold one of its business divisions to Sivantos, Inc., and as part of the sale, Siemens transferred to Sivantos the obligation to pay the plaintiff’s benefits.
Northrop was found not to be a fiduciary with respect to certain acts alleged against it; however, it did not escape the failure to monitor fiduciaries complaint.