Vanderbilt University joins Duke University and the University of Chicago in settling claims about 403(b) plan mismanagement.
Tag: retirement plan litigation
Putnam Investments has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on whether the plaintiff or the defendant bears the burden of proof on loss causation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and 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 lawsuit accuses Fidelity of requiring "secret" payments from funds to make up for declining amounts of revenue sharing payments received by the firm as a result of the increasing use of passive mutual funds, institutional and R6 share classes of mutual funds and collective trusts
Fiduciary defendants were accused of allowing unreasonable expenses to be charged to participants for administration of the plan and of retaining high-cost and poor-performing investments.
Plaintiffs' claims over retirement plan investment and administration fees against the University of Southern California may now proceed.
In addition, the company will select a non-proprietary target-date fund (TDF) for its 401(k) investment lineup and increase the company match contribution rate for three years.
After giving plaintiffs a second chance at offering alternative action Exxon could have taken, the court again found the suggested action was something plan fiduciaries could believe would do more harm than good.
The court found MassMutual did not breach provisions of a prior settlement to which the plaintiff was bound.
The defendants were denied summary judgment on all claims.
The complaint alleges that Stadion Money Management and Mutual of Omaha abused their managed account arrangement by putting their own interests ahead of participants’.
The Department of Labor's Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) also alleged in a lawsuit that fiduciaries to two retirement plans failed to administer the plans, leaving participants unable to gain information about their funds or gain access to their plan accounts.
No reason was given for why the plaintiff decided on the voluntary dismissal.
The question was included in its petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to settle a circuit split about burden of proof in ERISA cases.
In addition to a gross monetary payment of $10.65 million, the university agreed to other non-monetary actions.
In a colorfully worded opinion, the district court judge chides plaintiffs for failing to acknowledge basic facts about the way annuities work and their well-established role in 403(b) plans.
The complaint stems from defendants’ alleged refusal to pay post-termination benefits to the plaintiff—and a sizable similarly situated class of would-be beneficiaries—pursuant to terms and definitions in plan documents.
Plaintiffs in the case say the appellate court held them to stricter pleading standards than it did plaintiffs in other Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuits.
A lawsuit filed by a participant whose benefit liability was transferred to MetLife in a pension risk transfer (PRT) deal is still ongoing.
As cases against MetLife, Pepsi and American Airlines have been filed, Groom Law Group questions whether these cases may present a new area of potential legal exposure.
The university has pared down to 11 investment options in its 403(b) plan.