Related self-dealing claims made against other national financial services providers by participants in their own retirement plans have met varying degrees of success.
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 Supreme Court will weigh in on the question of whether an adequately funded pension that is not in immediate danger of insolvency could have wronged participants and breached ERISA in the selection of poorly performing investments offered by an affiliate company.
The lawsuit accuses Eaton Vance defendants of unlawful self-dealing with respect to a company retirement plan, in violation of ERISA and to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries.
The decision against Mutual of Omaha’s preliminary motions to dismiss a self-dealing lawsuit underscores the way district court judges tend to allow for discovery in ERISA matters, given the complex and often secretive nature of the facts and circumstances in question.
Similar to a lawsuit the firm settled a few years ago, a newly filed district court complaint says Transamerica “saddled its defined contribution plan participants with substandard investment portfolios that were managed by an affiliate.”