The 'Terror' of 401(k) Litigation

So much of our lives have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic—but the pace of 401(k) litigation, it seems, has, if anything, accelerated.

Now, some may find the label “terror” in the title extreme. In fact, it hadn’t really occurred to me until I read the response of defendants to a suit slapped on Genentech Inc. and the plan fiduciaries of its $7.6 billion 401(k) plan in early October. In a response to that excessive fee suit, the defendants’ attorneys referred to this suit—and others like it—as “an in terrorem attack on fiduciaries and employers seeking sweeping monetary and injunctive relief geared toward disrupting employee benefit relationships and causing protracted, expensive litigation.” 

“In terrorem,” Latin for “into/about fear,” has a legal context—a legal threat, really—one generally voiced in hope of compelling an action (or lack of action) without resorting to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. It normally arises in regard to a provision in a will which threatens that if anyone challenges the legality of the will or any part of it, then that person will be cut off or given only a dollar, rather than what is left to them in the will. 

While that may (or may not) be an accurate characterization of that particular litigation, the motivations of the plaintiffs’ bar on these matters are surely as diverse as the plans and plan designs they challenge, if not the experience, expertise and expectations of the individual firms themselves. Indeed, having had the opportunity to discuss these matters with a few over the years, I am persuaded that some at least are indeed fighting what they honestly believe is the “good fight.”[i] They see evidence of inattentive fiduciaries manipulated (or motivated) by unscrupulous providers, sometimes over a period of years, if not decades, all to the financial detriment of participants who must work (and save) all the more to compensate for the “theft.”  

However, in the process they have sought to create presumptions of imprudence that (IMO) aren’t. They’d have us (or more precisely, a judge) believe that active management is not only inherently inferior to passive approaches, but unacceptable, that RFPs not only must be conducted, but at a minimum must be conducted on a 3-year cycle, to accept that recordkeeping fees are prudent only if assessed as a function of participant count (as though size and complexity of the plan’s investments and design shouldn’t be a consideration), that extrapolated averages of published plan fees are sufficient to set a benchmark of reasonability, that a stable value option is superior to money market, except when money market is better than stable value, that they provide too many options for participants to choose from… or too few. Indeed, as the defendants in the Genentech response note, “Fiduciaries that manage 401(k) plans are getting sued no matter what they do.”  

When the dust “settles” in these cases—sometimes over decades, but of late more rapidly—most still produce nothing but a monetary “arrangement”—the amount nearly always significantly less than the damages alleged, and the per participant recovery relatively small.[ii] The plaintiffs’ attorneys get somewhere between 25% and a third of that recovery—which is deemed reasonable[iii] since they often labor long and without compensation until a settlement or adjudication is reached, though it is often tens of millions of dollars when it happens. 

Those suits that do go to trial generally seem to turn out in favor of the plan fiduciary(ies), either because the substance behind the plaintiffs’ claims is found to be insufficient, or the actions of the plan fiduciaries are determined to clear the admittedly high bar of ERISA’s prudence. It’s easy to overlook that result because, as human beings, we are inclined to see a settlement in manners as heinous as those alleged as an admission of culpability, if not guilt, whatever the legal disclaimers. Regardless, while the proceeds that flow to the plaintiffs’ counsel surely offset the investment of time and effort getting to that point, there’s little question that some of it simply goes to funding the next suit… 

As with any apparently profitable enterprise, this current wave of 401(k) litigation has attracted new entrants—and copycats—not only in actions, but in the very language employed in their filings. Based on their record to date, it’s doubtful that they will enjoy much success under the full scrutiny of adjudication—but then, that may not be their objective.  

Ultimately it takes time, patience—and yes, money—to stand up to this threat. 

But here’s hoping that, knowing the threat exists, plan fiduciaries continue to take the time to be thoughtful, deliberate and, yes, prudent in the exercise of their critical duties, that they take the time to document that work—that they do so with the involvement and engagement of wise counsel—that they find ways to share the fruits of that diligence with those they serve—and that in so doing, they deprive the plaintiffs’ bar of any rational basis upon which to bring, much less prevail in, these pursuits.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] There’s no question that 401(k) fees have declined over the years—and while the plaintiffs’ bar would surely like—and some are, perhaps entitled—to claim credit for at least some of that, fees decline for any number of reasons, though plan fiduciaries, writ large, are more sensitive to the issue these days. Then again, the costs of this litigation are being paid by someone, and insurers have not traditionally been known to long absorb the impact of such things to their bottom line—indeed, some have already taken to asking pointed questions of employers in the course of questionnaires that would seem to have little to do directly with the insurance coverage sought. 

[ii] The named plaintiff(s) generally are accorded $10,000 to $25,000 each for their time and trouble in representing the class.

[iii] Though that never takes into account the time, effort, expense and opportunity costs for the employers that must devote time and treasure to the litigation.

5 Things Your Plan Committee Members Need to Know

Over the past decade and change, there have been a number of high-profile excessive fee suits brought against retirement plan fiduciaries, notably the plan committees that oversee these programs. Here’s what your plan committee members should know.

1. Why they are a member of the committee.

Today the process of putting together an investment or plan committee runs the gamut – everything from simply extrapolating roles from an organization chart to a random assortment of individuals to a thoughtful consideration of individuals and their qualifications to act as a plan fiduciary.

There is, or should be, a legitimate, articulatable reason why each and every member of your plan/investment committee was selected. They, and every other member of the committee, should know that reason. If you can’t articulate that reason (or can’t with a straight face), they shouldn’t be on the committee – for their own sake, and the sake of every other committee member.

Note also that, over time, committees have a tendency to expand, sometimes based more on factors like internal organizational politics than on valuable perspectives or expertise. But human dynamics are such that the larger the group, the more diffused (and sometimes deferred) the decision-making. So, it’s worth revisiting that articulatable reason – and making sure it’s still valid – on at least an annual basis.

2. That, as a member of the plan committee, each of them is probably a fiduciary. 

Committee members often do their work in relative anonymity – or did before the recent spate of ERISA litigation. That said, in a recent excessive fee case (Sacerdote v. N.Y. Univ.), the court – while delivering a verdict for the plan fiduciaries – nonetheless called out several committee members who “…displayed a surprising lack of in-depth knowledge concerning the financial aspects of managing a multi-billion-dollar pension portfolio and a lack of true appreciation for the significance of her role as a fiduciary” – including, in one case, a member who “…did not consider herself a fiduciary (but rather believed the Committee was the fiduciary).”

In that case, a federal judge also stated that “the hiring or appointment of a co-fiduciary does not relieve the original fiduciary of its independent duties,” that “no fiduciary may passively rely on information provided by a co-fiduciary,” and that a “fiduciary who delegates fiduciary responsibilities nonetheless retains a duty to exercise prudence” – a process that she likened to a “good old-fashioned ‘kicking the tires’ of the appointed fiduciary’s work…”.

Their role on the committee may be bounded in by the focus of that group – a focus on the investment and investment menu, for example. That said, if they’re on a plan committee, and they are influencing plan assets, they’re a fiduciary, and they should not only know that, but know what that means.

Of course, fiduciary status is based on one’s responsibilities with the plan, not a title. Simply stated, those who have discretion in administering and managing the plan, or if you control the plan’s assets (such as choosing the investment options or choosing the firm that chooses those options), are fiduciaries to the extent of that discretion or control – and that certainly includes committees that either make decisions regarding the hiring or firing of plan fiduciaries, or those that make decisions regarding the plan’s assets.

3. What being a plan fiduciary means.

Fiduciaries have important responsibilities and are subject to standards of conduct because they act on behalf of participants in a retirement plan and their beneficiaries. In addition to paying only reasonable plan expenses, these responsibilities include acting solely in the interest of plan participants and their beneficiaries and with the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them, following the terms of plan documents, and carrying out their duties prudently. More precisely with the skill and aptitude of a person expert in such matters.

Even when the plan hires a professional investment advisor to help them – something that ERISA demands of plan fiduciaries when they lack the skill and knowledge of a prudent expert – in the NYU case above, the same judge pointed out that even then the committee could not “unthinkingly defer” to that advisor’s expertise. Rather, she said, in order to fulfill their duties, “…the Committee members must meaningfully probe” the advisor’s recommendations “and make informed but independent decisions.”

ERISA fiduciaries are personally liable, and may be required to restore any losses to the plan or to restore any profits gained through improper use of plan assets. What does that liability mean? Consider that, in the Enron case, the outside directors and committee members settled for about $100 million, most of which was paid by the fiduciary insurer. However, the individuals also had to pay approximately $1.5 million from their own pockets.

And since fiduciaries have potential liability for the actions of their co-fiduciaries, it’s also a good idea to… know who their co-fiduciaries are.

4. What’s in the plan’s Investment Policy Statement.

First, let’s acknowledge that the law doesn’t require that you have a written investment policy statement. Of course, if the law does not specifically require a written investment policy statement (IPS) – think of it as investment guidelines for the plan – ERISA nonetheless basically anticipates that plan fiduciaries will conduct themselves as though they had one in place. And indeed, the vast majority of plans do have a written IPS – more than 90%, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s 61st Annual Survey of Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plans.

More than that, generally speaking, you should find it easier to conduct the plan’s investment business in accordance with a set of established, prudent standards if those standards are in writing, and not crafted at a point in time when you are desperately trying to make sense of the markets. In sum, you want an IPS in place before you need an IPS in place.

5. What you’ll do to support them in this important duty.

Every plan, and every plan committee is unique. But the responsibility, and the prudent expert standard to which those responsibilities must be held has been called “the highest known to the law.” In forming and conducting the committee its imperative not only that the members be selected wisely, but that they be informed and engaged so that they can adequately and fully discharge those responsibilities.

One recent court decision (Wildman v. Am. Century Servs.) in favor of the plan committee defendants explains that the committee met regularly three times a year, and had “special meetings if something arose that needed to be discussed before the regularly scheduled meetings.” Moreover, the defendants testified that those meetings “were productive and lasted as long as was needed to fully address each issue on the agenda. On average, the meetings lasted an hour to an hour and a half.”

The plan provided “training and information about their fiduciary duties, including a ‘Fiduciary Toolkit,’ which outlined their duties as fiduciaries, as well as a summary plan document, and articles regarding fiduciary duties in general.” That kit included a copy of the current Investment Policy Statement, and the court noted that “the Committee members read these materials and took their responsibilities as fiduciaries seriously.”

And if your committee does that – well, then you’ll have the makings of a great plan committee.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD