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.
Its former executive pastor and his wife presented evidence showing that supplemental retirement benefits were improperly taken in November 2011 and placed in the church's building campaign.
Wilmington Trust subsidiaries were found not to be fiduciaries, but other claims against the M&T Bank retirement plan committee were moved forward.
The case ascended on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, where it also flatly failed to meet the high hurdles for proving standing established in Fifth-Third Bank vs. Dudenhoeffer.
The 6th Circuit said a district court rejected case law when it reasoned that the cases relied on by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) arose under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act (MPPAA) and did not address single-employer plans.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the archdiocese’s application for a temporary reprieve from a court order to pay $4.7 million to both retired and active teachers; however, filing for bankruptcy temporarily freezes all litigation.
According to Josh Cohen, a big part of PGIM’s strategy as a DCIO provider is to foster conversations across plan sponsors’ own organizations, “presenting them with a framework for frank and practical discussions between the HR and finance functions.”
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.
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.
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.”
Beyond the nearly $22 million in monetary terms, the settlement agreement includes substantial prospective relief to be provided by Deutsche Bank.
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 lawsuit claimed the excessive compensation received by PIMCO officers through the PIMCO Total Return Fund was so disproportionately large that investment returns suffered.
The lawsuit alleged that Citigroup violated its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by offering and keeping affiliated funds in its 401(k) plans when better-performing, lower-cost funds were available.
The court-ordered restitution includes $69,000 in employee and matching employer contributions, as well as lost earnings due to the 401(k) plan, and approximately $4.3 million for fraudulent loans and identity theft.
The 8th Circuit ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the Wells Fargo TDFs were an imprudent choice.
The plaintiffs intend to show that the government’s actions approving benefit cut reductions reflect a constitutional violation for several reasons.