It’s anyone’s guess at this early juncture whether the fiduciary breach lawsuit will fizzle, though it includes some familiar allegations from other lawsuits filed by Capozzi Adler.
Tag: retirement plan litigation
A federal district court judge noted there are more than 460,000 loans at issue.
The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on October 23, trying to correct pleading errors after Abbott was dismissed from the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs accused the profit sharing plan sponsor of investing too conservatively and applying an inappropriate one-size-fits-all default investment allocation for participants.
The settlement is a victory for the increasingly well-known law firm Capozzi Adler, which has filed numerous ERISA excessive fee lawsuits in the past several years.
In the years since the Supreme Court handed a decision establishing strict standards for proving standing, very few stock drop cases have made it past the motion to dismiss stage.
Plaintiffs claim that as a jumbo plan, Amway had substantial bargaining power regarding investment fees and expenses.
The participants claim they were mislead and intimidated to sell their shares back to the company at a price significantly lower than fair market value.
The lead plaintiff in the suit says her employer, a large financial services company, has inappropriately prioritized its own investments within a profit sharing retirement plan offered to employees.
The defendants argued that they lacked standing to recover losses for investments in which they did not invest.
A former participant in the Allstate 401(k) plan accuses plan fiduciaries of keeping poorly performing target-date funds on the investment menu and as the plan's default investment.
The Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Milwaukee says the investment managers' failure to follow the promised investment strategy of the funds resulted in massive losses.
Admitting no wrongdoing, Reliance Trust will pay $39.8 million to settle the case.
The lawsuit contends that, in most cases, the managed account service added no material value to participants, creating asset allocations 'not materially different than' those of the age appropriate target-date options for participants.
The plaintiffs in the case claimed the company implemented a corporate restructuring in a way to avoid pension plan obligations.
The lawsuit against Principal Global Investors and related entities was abandoned.
The Supreme Court has denied review of the lawsuit accusing Principal Life Insurance Co. of violating ERISA by setting the crediting rate for a guaranteed investment contract such that it can “retain unreasonably large and/or excessive profits.”
A district court in California has proven to be skeptical of claims suggesting that active management funds are categorically imprudent retirement plan investments; the ruling also defends the use of revenue sharing.
The high court has been asked to weigh in on whether allegations that investment fees charged were excessive compared to other investments is sufficient to state a claim of imprudence.