The big story in retirement investing is now the Trump administration’s push to have private equity investments added into 401(k) plans. This isn’t really a new story, as I have been writing about it since at least last November, but the intensity – as well as the media coverage – has now ramped up.
One of the themes I have returned to time and again with regard to excessive fee and other class action litigation under ERISA is that the traditional litigation approach deployed for years by the plan sponsor community needs to be updated. With some variation, it has followed the traditional defense model typically used in class
This is a very nice, well-balanced article by Kellie Mejdrich of Law360 on the question of adding private equity investments into 401(k) plans. I am quoted in it not so much as a naysayer on the idea, but more on the need for a little bit of skepticism and caution on the idea. To be
Walk softly and carry a big stick. Trust but verify. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.
People who know me, have read my blog regularly, heard me speak on ERISA issues, or been on a jury in a case I have tried, know that I am very fond of analogies, metaphors, short examples, and
I have long been inordinately fond of the Dickens’ line “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” It is applicable to many things at many times, and I have used it in briefs, slide decks, presentations, and conversations. But at this point in time, for plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries
Group life is the redheaded stepchild of employee benefits, often added on by insurers on top of the primary products being sold to plan sponsors and employers, such as disability insurance. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, except that problems tend to crop up in the administration of group life plans and in the
I wanted to quickly pass along, with a couple of comments, this excellent blog post by Scott Galbreath of Trucker Huss on a recent Ninth Circuit decision on interpreting and applying releases of ERISA claims executed by employees. As the post points out, the Ninth Circuit adopted the tests of other circuits, including the First
Years ago, I represented a financial advisor in a dispute with a particular, well-known financial product provider after the advisor concluded that the fees in the annuities offered by that company were both too high and too hidden for him to continue to recommend the product to his clients, and instead recommended that his clients
The common law of ERISA is rife with odd decisions that likely made sense when issued, but, like opening Pandora’s box, led to unintended, unanticipated and arguably wrong rules of law when applied further down the road in additional cases. Heck, there are entire bodies of scholarship arguing that the very existence of a central
Deferred comp plans, or what to an ERISA lawyer is a top hat plan, have become widespread in recent years, used for a variety of purposes, from executive recruitment and retention to simply rewarding important executives at smaller employers who may lack other resources for doing so. But a story from the other day about