In Buckner v. Murray, No. 21-cv-567, 2024 WL 1366785 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2024), the court dismissed the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan’s suit to collect $6.5 billion in withdrawal liability because the trustees did not file suit in accordance with the plan’s trust agreement. After the contributing employer filed for bankruptcy
In Split Ruling Second Circuit Declines to Compel Arbitration of ERISA Plan Claims
They say that April showers bring May flowers, but there were no flowers for ERISA plan sponsors and fiduciaries on May 1 when the Second Circuit held, in a ruling that provoked a vigorous dissenting opinion, that an ERISA plan’s arbitration provision was not enforceable because it required the plan participant to forgo his statutory
Fifth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of 401(k) Fees Claims
The Fifth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s dismissal of claims that the fiduciaries of a 401(k) plan breached the duty of prudence under ERISA by offering participants retail share classes instead of cheaper institutional share classes, and causing the plan to pay allegedly excessive recordkeeping fees. The decision is notable for articulating the level
Seventh Circuit Holds Withdrawal Liability Cannot Be Based on Extra-Contractual Contributions
In Bulk Transp. v. Teamsters Union No. 142 Pension Fund, No. 23-1563, 2024 WL 1230236 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2024), the Seventh Circuit held that the contributions used to calculate an employer’s withdrawal liability may include only the contributions the employer was required to remit pursuant to the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining
California District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss 401(k) Excessive Fee and Underperformance Claims
A California district court recently denied a motion to dismiss claims that the fiduciaries of a 401(k) plan breached their ERISA fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by selecting underperforming, high-cost investments and causing the plan to pay excessive fees for services. The decision is notable for illustrating how pleading standards in investment performance and
District Court Breaks Trend and Allows Claims Challenging Prudence of BlackRock LifePath Index Target Date Funds to Proceed
We have previously blogged on the flurry of class action lawsuits challenging 401(k) plan investments in the BlackRock LifePath Index Target Date Funds. District courts around the country—seven of them in total—have granted motions to dismiss claims by 401(k) plan participants because their copy-cat allegations of underperformance were insufficient to raise a plausible inference of imprudence. That is, until now. Last week, a federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Virginia became the first to conclude that the participants’ allegations of imprudence related to the BlackRock Funds were plausible. Trauernicht v. Genworth, No. 22-cv-532, 2023 WL 5961651 (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2023).
Tenth Circuit Adopts “Meaningful Benchmark” Pleading Standard in Dismissing Challenges to 401(k) Plan Fees
In a case of first impression in the Tenth Circuit, the Court recently joined the chorus of circuit courts in holding that a 401(k) plan participant alleging excessive investment management or recordkeeping fees must assert a “meaningful benchmark” in order to survive a motion to dismiss. In addition to rejecting commonly pleaded “benchmarks” because they were not meaningful, the Court’s ruling is of particular significance because, unlike some other courts, it dismissed the participants’ “share-class claim”—ruling on a motion to dismiss that their allegation that cheaper share classes of the same mutual fund were available to the plan was demonstrably false. The case is Matney v. Barrick Gold, No. 22-4045, 2023 WL 5731996 (10th Cir. Sept. 6, 2023).
Two District Courts Reach Conflicting Holdings Over Excessive Recordkeeping Fee Claims
Two District Courts have reached conflicting decisions on the same day when ruling on substantially similar allegations that plan fiduciaries violated ERISA by paying too much for recordkeeping services, with one court dismissing the claims and the other court allowing the claims to move forward into the (often expensive) discovery phase of litigation. The cases
District Court Denies Employer’s “Injury-In-Fact” Challenge to Withdrawal Liability
In Holland v. Murray, No. 21-cv-567, 2023 WL 2645708 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2023), the court held that financial support provided by Congress to a multiemployer pension plan under the Bipartisan American Miners Act (“BAMA”) did not divest the plan of Article III standing to pursue the withdrawal liability it was owed.
District Court Holds Employer “Expelled” From Plan May Not Have Effected a “Withdrawal”
In Central States v. Wingra, No. 21-cv-3684, 2023 WL 199360 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2023), the district court held that an employer expelled from a multiemployer pension plan may not owe withdrawal liability because the permanent cessation of the employer’s obligation to contribute was not voluntary. While the court subsequently limited the decision as being for discovery purposes only (see Central States v. Wingra, No. 21-cv-3684 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2023)), the court allowed the employer to assert its challenge in the district court, rather than in arbitration, because the employer plausibly alleged that its expulsion from the plan was in bad faith.