Retirement Plans

Subscribe to Retirement Plans

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).

A recent Ninth Circuit decision has generated considerable controversy amongst employee benefits practitioners by holding that plan fiduciaries engaged in prohibited transactions when they amended the plan’s existing recordkeeping contract to add brokerage and investment advisory services. In so ruling, the Court remanded the case to the district court to consider whether the transactions fell within the exemption for reasonable service agreements and, independently, whether it was imprudent for plan fiduciaries not to consider third-party compensation earned by the plan’s recordkeeper. The case is Bugielski v. AT&T Services, Inc., 76 F. 4th 894 (9th Cir. 2023).

Participants in AT&T’s 401(k) plan sued the plan administrator and the plan’s investment committee, alleging that defendants engaged in prohibited transactions and breached their duty of prudence by failing to investigate and evaluate all compensation earned by the plan’s longtime recordkeeper. The claims apparently were prompted by amendments to AT&T’s contract with its recordkeeper, which gave plan participants access to the recordkeeper’s brokerage account platform and to investment advisory services through a third-party advisor. Under these arrangements, the recordkeeper received revenue-sharing fees from the mutual funds available to participants via the brokerage account platform; and, through its own agreement with the investment advisor, the recordkeeper received a portion of the fees that the investment advisor earned from managing participant accounts.

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).

On Friday, the IRS released Notice 2023-62, which addresses certain pressing implementation issues related to the SECURE 2.0 requirement that catch-up contributions for participants with FICA wages of more than $145,000 during the prior calendar year from the employer maintaining the plan must be made on a Roth basis.

In welcome news for plan sponsors, the guidance announces a two-year “administrative transition period” for implementation of this requirement, which was otherwise set to take effect on January 1, 2024.  The notice confirms that, despite a drafting quirk in the SECURE 2.0 statute which suggested that catch-up contributions would be discontinued after 2023, catch-up contributions will continue to be available.  The notice also outlines future guidance that Treasury and the IRS intend to issue on other Roth catch-up requirement topics.

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…

The IRS recently issued Notice 2023-43 providing new interim guidance for self-correction of plan errors. This guidance applies to corrections made prior to the anticipated issuance of revisions to the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (“EPCRS”). Under this guidance, provided certain conditions are satisfied, most Eligible Inadvertent Failures (defined below) may be self-corrected, though there are specific types of failures that may not be self-corrected at this time (discussed below).

In addition to the excitement of the upcoming outdoor concert season, Proskauer’s lawyers are anxiously awaiting VERY different forms of entertainment:

  • the next installment of the never-ending saga of U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) guidance on who is considered an investment advice fiduciary, including whether the fiduciary standard applies to advice on whether to take a rollover;
  • finalization of the DOL’s QPAM Exemption amendment proposal; and
  • resolution of court challenges to the DOL’s final “ESG” rules.

We discussed these developments at ERISAFest 2023.  If you missed it, feel free to reach out to your Proskauer contact for a recording, and be sure to sign up next year!

A third district court has dismissed with prejudice a complaint alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering 401(k) plan participants the option to invest in BlackRock LifePath Index Target Date Funds (the “Funds”).  Beldock v. Microsoft, Case No. 22-cv-1082 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2023).  Although the outcome of the court’s ruling here is consistent with earlier decisions, the rationale underlying the Beldock decision arguably goes further than in prior rulings, thus providing additional food for thought.