Investment option fees are the current bête noire of 401(k) plans, but to date the government response to them has not been a direct attack on the amount of fees themselves, in the form of regulatory or legislative establishment of appropriate ranges of fees. This differs, for instance, from the manner in which the government
401(k) Plans
In the More Things Change Department . . .
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, Fiduciaries
I mentioned in a prior post that I was speaking on a panel with David Webber of Boston University Law School. David’s blog, Labor Capital, has a nice post on the financial weakness of public pension plans, and the questionable financial transactions that have led to it; you can find it here. I…
The Ninth Circuit Adopts Moench and Why It Matters
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, Fiduciaries
Now here’s an interesting tale, namely the story of the Ninth Circuit’s adoption of the Moench presumption with regard to breach of fiduciary duty claims alleging that fiduciaries erred by allowing a plan to hold too much employer stock or otherwise failing to act to protect participants from the risk of holding that stock as…
ERISA and the 401(k) turn 30
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, ERISA Seminars and other Resources
I mentioned in a previous post that I am speaking on ERISA issues in a seminar for the Professional Liability Underwriting Society. The presentation is “I Have to Retire on THIS? ERISA and the 401(k) turn 30,” and its tomorrow, Thursday, October 7th, at 2 pm. You can find registration information here if you would…
Moench, the DOL and the Future of Stock Drop Litigation
By Stephen Rosenberg on
I had the pleasure yesterday of presenting the September Advisor Success Webinar for BrightScope, in which I discussed the law and practice of fiduciary liability and exposure in detail. Its for subscribers only and not publicly available, but for those of you in the Boston area who are in the insurance industry, I will…
Private Attorney Generals and ERISA
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, Fiduciaries
Here’s an interesting, although at a minimum somewhat overstated, diatribe against 401(k) plans from Forbes, in which the author complains about four specific risks to participants: greater investment risk than would exist investing outside of such a plan; problems with employer or vendor record keeping and management; the possibility of employer failure; and a lack…
Pay Now and Later: High Plan Fees Pose an Increasing Risk of Fiduciary Exposure
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans, Fiduciaries
Chip, chip, chip. No, that’s not the sound of the polar ice caps shedding ice, although I suppose it could well be. It’s the sound of the Fortress Europa that some of the more optimistic lawyers for 401(k) plans thought was being enacted against excessive fee claims – in the wake of cases such…
Can the Deepwater Horizon Spill Sink the Fiduciaries of BP’s 401(k) Plan as Well?
Well, someone thinks so. You can count me, though, as monstrously skeptical that you could tag the fiduciaries of the BP 401(k) plan with breach of fiduciary duty for overexposure to company stock because they failed to expect the Deepwater Horizon explosion and account for it by greater diversification. On the other hand are…
On Named and Functional Fiduciaries
By Stephen Rosenberg on
I have been a fan of Scott Simon’s Morningstar articles on the various fiduciary relationships among those who run plans and those who advise them. This one here is a good, practical, business oriented view of the different forms of fiduciaries – named and functional (or deemed) – in 401(k) and other plans. It is…
Wednesday Potpourri
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in 401(k) Plans
Over the past week or so, several interesting items have crossed my desk, none of which have appeared while I have had time to do them justice with a full blown post. We will do three for Wednesday today – even though there is no alliteration at all to that title, as opposed to five…