Lessened, Learned?

When I’m talking to plan sponsors (and advisers) about the challenges of being an ERISA fiduciary, I’m generally inclined to emphasize the awesome responsibilities that come with the “assignment”: the impact exerted on participant retirement savings; the admonition to ensure that fees paid by, and services rendered to, the plan are reasonable; the implications of the prudent expert rule; and the liability (and personal liability, at that), not only for your own acts, but for the acts of your co-fiduciaries (and hence an urgency around knowing who those co-fiduciaries are). I’m inclined to talk about the limitations of ERISA 404(c) in providing a shield against all that potential liability.

I’ll remind them that the Labor Department considers them responsible for all participant-directed investments outside 404(c)’s provisions, and note how frequently participant directions tend to fall outside those provisions. I’ll tell them how important it is to read the plan document, and to make sure the plan is operated according to its terms. I will remind them that the power to appoint members to the plan committee has been found to extend fiduciary liability to those who do the appointing, and I will, from time to time, remind them that company stock has been called “the most dangerous plan investment,” in no small part because a group of 401(k) participants is a class-action litigant’s dream team.

And then we get a court decision like the 2nd Circuit’s recent holding in Gray v. Citigroup, Inc., and I wonder if I understand ERISA at all.

The Case

Gray is a “stock drop” case (see 2nd “Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Citigroup Stock Drop Charges”), brought on behalf of Citigroup participants whose 401(k) balances were invested in the stock of their employer, stock that dropped precipitously in value in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, in response to the collapse of the subprime mortgage market. As is common in such cases, the participant-plaintiffs alleged that the stock was retained as a plan investment option after it was no longer prudent to do so, and that those on, and who appointed, the plan investment committee were not only in a position to know that, but to know that well before the stock tumbled in value.

However, the 2nd Circuit noted—and supported—the determination of the lower court that “defendants had no discretion whatsoever to eliminate Citigroup stock as an investment option, and defendants were not acting as fiduciaries to the extent that they maintained Citigroup stock as an investment option.” Moreover, it noted—and supported the District Court’s determination that “even if defendants did have discretion to eliminate Citigroup stock, they were entitled to a presumption that investment in the stock, in accordance with the Plans’ terms, was prudent….”

Now, how is it that the plan’s committee had “no discretion whatsoever” to deal with the company stock investment? Quite simply, because the plan document called for that as an investment option.1 That’s right, apparently the court felt that the plan fiduciaries had no choice in deciding to keep that option in the plan and available because, to put it simply, “the plan document made them do it.”2

Presumption of Prudence

As for the alternative argument, the “presumption of prudence”? Well, it’s come up before in Moench v. Robertson, a 3rd Circuit decision not only cited here, but subsequently adopted by other courts. In Moench, the 3rd Circuit found that a plan sponsor that offered stock as an investment in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) was entitled to a presumption of prudence.3 Moench is an older case (1995), and from a time when suits based on employer stock investments were less prevalent than today.

More recently, such cases have become nearly as routine as a 100-point drop in the Dow, and the judicial system, honoring precedent, and what it has chosen to view as a Congressional endorsement for employer stock investment in these programs, has led a growing number of jurisdictions to summarily (if not peremptorily) dismiss many of these actions. Indeed, when all is said and done, it now seems as though the courts are comfortable imposing a less stringent review of the decision to invest in employer stock than in any other investment on the retirement plan menu.4

Moreover, for those that have, since Enron anyway, worried about the potentially conflicting duties owed by certain committee members to shareholders and plan participants, the 2nd Circuit provided a moment of unexpected “clarity,” resolving with a pen stroke a dilemma that has concerned plan fiduciaries for at least the past decade by declaring, “We also hold that defendants did not have an affirmative duty to disclose to plan participants non-public information regarding the expected performance of Citigroup stock….”

Ironically, it was this very 2nd Circuit that, just a few years ago, called to mind the notion that ERISA’s fiduciary standards of conduct are “the highest known to the law.”

Perhaps they still are, but, IMHO, this decision serves only to lessen that standard.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

Footnotes:

1 More specifically, the 2nd Circuit noted that “[a] person is only subject to these fiduciary duties ‘to the extent’ that the person, among other things, ‘exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan’ or ‘has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan.’” And then it went on to decide that the plan fiduciary’s obligation to honor the terms of the plan document effectively displaced that discretionary authority.

2 “When, as here, plan documents define an EIAP as ‘comprised of shares of” employer stock, and authorize the holding of ‘cash and short-term investments’ only to facilitate the ‘orderly purchase’ of more company stock, the fiduciary is given little discretion to alter the composition of investments.”

3 More than a year ago, I noted that “in effect, this ‘presumption of prudence’ seems to have become a magic talisman against which no claim of malfeasance can be successfully alleged, much less established, simply because the courts have discovered (a cynic might say created) a presumption that holding employer stock is appropriate.” (see “IMHO: Prudent Mien?”).

4 One needn’t read between the lines here. In the court’s own words, “We reject plaintiffs’ argument—endorsed by the dissent—that we should analyze the decision to offer the Stock Fund as we would a fiduciary’s decision to offer any other investment option. We agree with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits that were it otherwise, fiduciaries would be equally vulnerable to suit either for not selling if they adhered to the plan’s terms and the company stock decreased in value, or for deviating from the plan by selling if the stock later increased in value.” (In the court’s defense, plan sponsors have, in fact, been sued for selling stock that later increased in value in a couple of rare situations.)

The 2nd Circuit’s decision is available HERE.

You might also find the amicus brief filed by the Department of Labor instructive HERE:

Court Costs

Last week brought to light an aspect of 401(k) litigation that doesn’t generally get a lot of coverage—and the participant-plaintiff was presented with a $50,000 bill.

Now, at some level, this case was “just” another stock drop suit where some kinds of accounting issues contributed to a sudden (and ostensibly unexpected) drop in the price of company shares, including those held in the company’s 401(k) plan.1 These types of cases have cropped up one after another in the wake of the market downturn, and while the fact patterns behind the drop in share price vary slightly, the suits themselves allege pretty much the same thing: The plan fiduciaries kept the stock as a plan investment after it was no longer prudent to do so; to wit—after it suffered a precipitous drop in value.

Most of these cases don’t seem to get very far, the courts either deferring to a “presumption of prudence” (see “IMHO: Prudent Mien?” or, as in this case, finding that ERISA 404(c)’s safe harbor provided shelter (see”Court Gives Baxter 404(c) Protection in Stock Drop Suit”).


What’s interesting to me about this case isn’t that it is a stock drop suit, not that the judge found 404(c) applicability as a shield (honestly, I’m not “getting it” in this case), and certainly not that the employer prevailed (that seems a pretty common result in stock drop cases). No, what I found interesting—and what one would hope that plaintiffs who get lured to these actions in the future might want to keep in mind—is that they might lose more than just their day in court.

Not that it was an all-out victory for the defendants. Sure, they’ll get $50,000 from the participant-plaintiff, but they had asked for roughly $500,000—and that didn’t include attorney fees! But in this case, after spending some time discussing whether such awards could be made and on what grounds, Judge Gottschall decided that such fee awards were allowed—and then proceeded to pick apart the itemized requests for reimbursements with the fine-tooth comb of someone auditing a business expense reimbursement request (disallowing most for either a lack of specificity or an inability to document the origins of the expense).

Regardless, I found the list of expenses to be eye-opening2, and while the defendants may well have had other resources to tap to cover them, it was a stark reminder of just how expensive litigation can be, how much court costs, even when you win.

But maybe there’d be less of that if those who set such things in motion had to spend some of THEIR money when they’re wrong.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

1 Specifically, U.S. District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the assessment of some $50,000 in costs associated with the litigation against David E. Rogers, who filed the suit against Baxter International in 2004. The suit, rejected by this same judge in 2010, alleged that Baxter continued offering company stock in its 401(k) plan after it was no longer prudent to do so (specifically, after its stock twice took tumbles after the reporting of disappointing earnings results, one involving fraud at a Brazilian subsidiary). Judge Gottschall ultimately dismissed the suit because she found that the employer qualified for protection under ERISA 404(c)’s safe harbor (see “Court Gives Baxter 404(c) Protection in Stock Drop Suit”).


2 From Baxter and former Baxter CEO Harry Kraemer:

(1) $23,163.44 for transcripts and video recordings of court hearings and depositions,
(2) $6,956.60 for photocopying court documents and preparation materials for depositions,
(3) $112,648.13 for exemplification and copying costs incurred in connection with responding to discovery requests (including nearly $78,500 in fees paid to an “e-discovery vendor” to process data into a readable format that could be reviewed and produced to plaintiff, as well as $15,000 spent digitalizing documents that existed in hardcopy format—at a rate the court said was about twice as expensive as simply copying them),
(4) $163,474.09 for the cost of computerized legal research.

From former Baxter CFO Brian Anderson:

(1) $4,070.95 for transcripts,
(2) $10,673.10 for photocopying,
(3) $2,687.04 for exemplification of trial exhibits,
(4) $173,150.00 for expert-witness expenses (apparently without providing any supporting documentation, so it was rejected).

Prudent Mien?

Anyone who has been paying attention to 401(k) plan litigation these past several years knows that a common trigger—perhaps the most common trigger—for litigation is the presence of company stock in the plan; more specifically, the presence of company stock that has sharply declined in value. Indeed, one has only to look at the two-month period following the struggle to contain the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the number of litigants and potential litigants circling the BP 401(k) plans to appreciate just how much more aggressive the plaintiffs’ bar has become in pursuing such actions.

That said, those who have been paying attention to how these cases have played out in court are doubtless aware that many, perhaps most, are not coming to trial at all. Rather, they have been dismissed with what, IMHO, is startling regularity, due to a “presumption of prudence.”

Now, one needn’t scour ERISA’s text to discern the boundaries of this legal construct; indeed, that would be a futile effort. Rather, it is a concept gleaned by the courts (and subsequently enshrined in legal precedent) from their understanding of the black letter of the law. It is a concept that found its footing in a 1995 case called Moench v. Robertson. Now, in that case, as in many of the new generation of “stock drop” cases (drawing their name from the fact that the action arises after the value of the stock drops), a plan participant sued a plan committee for breaching its fiduciary duty based on its continued investment in employer stock after the employer's financial condition “deteriorated.” The Moench court (the 3rd Circuit) affirmed the duty of prudence, but looked to ERISA’s diversification requirement and the allowances made for employer stock holdings in an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), and saw there a rebuttable presumption that an ESOP fiduciary that invested plan assets in employer stock acted consistently with ERISA (bearing in mind that, since Moench dealt with an ESOP, the plan document itself called for investment primarily in employer securities).

Now, I will admit to being something of a strict constructionist in my interpretation of the law. I am suspicious of those who manage to, through some jurisprudential alchemy, wrest unexpected (and likely unintended) legal conclusions by reading between the lines of the letter of the law. Further, I am generally distrustful of a process that builds on those kinds of legal “extensions” to base future determinations that are, IMHO, often far afield from the intentions of the law itself. After all, once you have established that 2 + 2 = 5, how hard is it to argue that 2 + 5 = 10?

Ironically—certainly in view of how the resulting Moench presumption has proven to be a powerful force in dismissing many of the stock drop cases at the pleading level—though the 3rd Circuit found a presumption of prudence, it reversed summary judgment for the committee/defendants because the facts alleged (precipitous drop in stock prices, committee members' knowledge of the impending collapse, and their conflicted loyalties as corporate insiders and fiduciaries), if proven, could overcome the presumption. And that finding came in the context of an ESOP, a plan design that, if not exempt from ERISA’s fiduciary strictures, would certainly seem to warrant a certain reasonable amount of fiduciary deference in the decision to hold employer stock.

That said, today the law of the land would seem to lie squarely on the side of plan fiduciaries who continue to hold out employer stock as a plan investment, come hell or high water (literally, in some cases). In effect, this “presumption of prudence” seems to have become a magic talisman against which no claim of malfeasance can be successfully alleged, much less established, simply because the courts have discovered (a cynic might say created) a presumption that holding employer stock is appropriate.

Plan fiduciaries have long been tempted by the allure of placing employer stock in these programs, and plan participants have, in large part, responded favorably1. Frankly, I find the rapaciousness of the plaintiffs bar on such matters to be unseemly at best—some downright unscrupulous—and many of the so-called “investigations” are nothing more than a fig-leaf-cloaked excuse to troll for potential litigants. Disaster can befall the best of firms, and stock prices sometimes tumble for reasons that have nothing to do with the fiduciary management of these plans.

That doesn’t mean that plan fiduciaries can pretend that they do not know things they clearly know as corporate fiduciaries; nor, as a recent amicus brief filed by the Labor Department on the broadening application of the Moench decision states, should the securities laws “immunize fiduciaries who knowingly incorporate false SEC filings into participant communications from liability under ERISA” (see “Solis Argues for Stock Drop Case Law Change”).

In this day and age, a plan fiduciary unable to see the potential for employer-security-related litigation is perhaps unworthy of the role; and, IMHO, a dual-role plan/corporate fiduciary unable to appreciate the potential for a conflicted duty vis-à-vis his or her responsibility to the retirement plan is living in a state of active denial.

As for those not yet targeted by litigation, thus far the courts may have presumed that plan fiduciaries are entitled to a certain deference in such matters—but, IMHO, that’s stretching the letter of the law.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD



1 Nor, as some like to posture, are participants necessarily bludgeoned into investing disproportionately large sums of their retirement savings there. Sure, the match accounts for some, and perhaps displaced loyalty some more, but I have found that participants are simply more familiar—and comfortable—with that option.