Not unexpectedly, the Second Circuit has just adopted the Moench presumption, in this ruling here and this one here involving stock drop cases. For those with less time on your hands, here is an excellent news media summary of these stock drop rulings out of the Second Circuit yesterday. I have long posited that, given
401(k) Plans
Defensive Plan Building After Loomis
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, Fiduciaries
Many of you may remember the race among law firms, after the trial court ruling in Tibble, to issue client alerts advising plan sponsors to make sure they were not holding retail share classes in their 401(k) plan investment options. Now, of course, we have the Seventh Circuit holding that it is just plain…
Loomis, Hecker, Tibble and the Evolution of Excessive Fee Claims
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, Fiduciaries
Well, well, well. Here is the story – well-presented by two lawyers from Williams Mullen – of the Seventh Circuit deciding this month, in the case of Loomis v Exelon Corporation, that holding retail class mutual fund shares, rather than cheaper institutional share classes, in a defined contribution plan was not sufficient to establish…
The New York Times on BrightScope
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, ERISA Seminars and other Resources
I don’t have much to say about this, but I would be remiss if I didn’t pass along this article from the New York Times the other day on BrightScope and its founders. The article, rightly, notes that BrightScope has its critics, but there is no denying that their work is adding to the knowledge…
The New York Times, Fees, Regulation and Wrap Fees
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans
This is an interesting article from the New York Times, directed at plan participants who may want to increase the returns in their 401(k)s by decreasing the costs in their plans and of their investments. It is not interesting so much for what it says – nothing in it is likely to be very surprising…
Fee and Expense Disclosure: No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, Third Party Administrators
I have commented before, including here, on the fact that there is some inherent tension between the fact that the administration of 401(k) plans costs something and the obligation of sponsors to, nonetheless, keep those costs down. One of the hoped for goals of the Department of Labor’s effort to shed light on fees…
401(k)s, Spousal Waiver and Beneficiary Forms
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans
I don’t have much to add to this Wall Street Journal story on the interplay of spousal consent rules, ERISA and beneficiary forms in 401(k) plans, but I did want to pass it along. There may be no more common fact pattern in either my years of practice or in the case law than that…
Retreat From the High Water Mark: Excessive Fee Litigation After Tibble
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, Fiduciaries
By the way, I never did make available a full copy of the article I referenced in this blog post here, which I wrote for the Spring 2011 edition of the Journal of Pension Benefits. The article analyzes excessive fee litigation in light of the trial rulings in Tibble, against the backdrop of…
The Lessons of Unisys
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Here is a very nicely written opinion out of the Third Circuit in Renfro v Unisys rejecting a breach of fiduciary duty claim alleging excessive fees in the mutual fund options in a company’s 401(k) plan. A few particular points are noteworthy. The first is the detailed explanation in the opinion of the reason that…
Talking About Fees
Summer time and the living is easy. Well no, not really – which is fine, because nothing makes a lawyer (at least this lawyer) more nervous than having time on his hands. Time demands have, though, cut down on my posting since the 4th. Still, I have had time over the past few weeks to…