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.
Tag: retirement plan litigation
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.
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.”
An interim ruling in the fiduciary breach case of Barrett vs. Pioneer Natural Resources, in which elements of the defendants’ motion to oppose class certification failed at the same time the lead plaintiff failed to prove standing, highlights the complex nature of retirement plan lawsuits.
In this case, the alleged knowledge of an artificially high stock price was rooted in the fact that the company had not disclosed that employees of its foreign subsidiaries had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 by paying bribes to foreign government officials.
Given a second chance to argue their case, participants in a Wells Fargo retirement plan have again failed to meet the steep pleading standards set out by the influential Supreme Court decision known as Fifth Third vs. Dudenhoeffer.
“ERISA’s limitations on who employers can exclude from ERISA plans are very narrow,” the decision states. “The law prohibits an employer from denying participation in an ERISA plan on the basis of age or length of service. Other than that, any bases for exclusion from a plan are permissible.”
However, a federal district judge found enough plausible evidence to move some duty of prudence claims forward.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are participants and beneficiaries of the Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, who seek to restore losses to the plan and to otherwise remedy a complicated series of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
403(b) plan participants have filed a lawsuit against Matrix Trust Company for making several transfers to an unauthorized account held by recordkeeper Vantage Benefits Administrators.
The legislation helps protect defendants who settle lawsuits from claims from co-defendants.
George Washington University has been sued over fees for its 403(b) plan.
The appellate court found Bank of America did not profit from transferring participants' 401(k) accounts to a cash balance plans and noted that previously the bank entered into a closing agreement with the IRS, paying a $10 million fine and setting up a special-purpose 401(k) plan to restore participants’ accounts.
The new claim in the 403(b) plan lawsuit says the defendants should have protected participant data as plan assets and not allowed TIAA to use it to market its products and services to participants.
A federal judge is allowing the plaintiff one last chance to make more context-specific arguments in her case.