ERISA Class Action Review – 2025

statutory fiduciary of the Plan. The Plan, a 401(k) defined contribution plan with over $3.8 billion in assets and more than 55,000 participants, provides retirement income to many LabCorp employees. The plaintiff asserted two primary claims, including: (i) LabCorp selected imprudent, high-cost investment options for the Plan, despite availability of lower-cost alternatives; and (ii) LabCorp failed to prudently manage and control recordkeeping fees paid to Fidelity, the third-party service provider. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that the Plan paid excessive recordkeeping fees of $43 per participant, instead of the appropriate rate of $25 per participant, and that LabCorp paid Fidelity additional compensation through indirect methods, such as revenue sharing and interest on participant funds. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court granted the motion. The court determined that with over 55,000 participants in the Plan, the class was sufficiently large to make individual joinder impractical, and therefore the numerosity requirement was easily satisfied. The court also ruled that there were common issues for the class, including whether LabCorp breached its fiduciary duties and whether the Plan suffered financial losses as a result. The court stated that the plaintiff’s claims were typical to other class members because they all stemmed from LabCorp’s alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to the Plan’s investments and recordkeeping fees. The court found no conflict of interest between the plaintiff and the class members and that class counsel would adequately represent the class interests. Finally, the plaintiff sought class certification under Rule 23(b)(1). The court determined that given the potential for inconsistent rulings if the case were to proceed individually, class certification under Rule 23(b)(1) was appropriate. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The plaintiffs, a group of defined contribution plan participants in Schissler, et al. v. Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc., Case No. 22-CV-2326 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2024), filed a class action alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the ERISA by including proprietary investment products in the plan while non-proprietary offerings were subject to a rigorous selection and review process. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class consisting of “all participants and beneficiaries of the Janus 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan that were invested in the Janus Henderson Funds at any time on or after September 9, 2016, excluding persons with responsibility for the Plans administrative functions or investments." Id. at 1. The court stated that there was no dispute that the plaintiffs were members of the proposed class, the proposed class was numerous but ascertainable, the plaintiffs’ claims were typical of the class claims, and that the plaintiffs and proposed class counsel would be capable of adequately representing the class interests at stake. Id. at 2. The court also determined that the prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications and that the fiduciary duties at issue pertained to all members of the proposed class. Id. Finally, the court ruled that that common questions of law and fact predominated over any individual issues. Id. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in Whipple, et al. v. Southeastern Freight Co., Case No. 23-CV-4583 (D.S.C. Oct. 21, 2024). The plaintiff filed a class action under the ERISA alleging that the defendant, a transportation company, violated its fiduciary duties by retaining an excessively costly asset manager to provide the company’s 401(k) plan administrative services. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff specifically asserted that the defendant failed to renegotiate the fees paid to the recordkeeper for its retirement plan, T. Rowe Price RPS Inc., which led participants to pay more than $50 annually for recordkeeping, while participants in similarly sized plans paid about $25. The plaintiff contended that participants in the 401(k) plan had collectively paid nearly $5 million in administrative fees for services that should have cost closer to $1.5 million over the prior six years. The plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of approximately 10,000 plan participants and beneficiaries who invested in the defendant’s 401(k) plan since January 1, 2018. The court opined that there were common question of fact and law that applied to each class member, including: (i) whether the defendant breached its fiduciary duty with respect to the plan: (ii) whether the plan suffered losses from the breaches; (iii) how to calculate the plan’s losses; (iv) the equitable relief that should be imposed to remedy the breaches; and (v) whether the defendant can establish that it acted in an objectively prudent manner. Id. at 14. The court also ruled that the plaintiff’s claims stemmed from a single course of action, i.e ., the defendant’s management of the plan, and in particular its alleged failure to properly monitor and manage recordkeeping fees for plan participants, and therefore were typical to all class members. The court also determined that class certification was appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1) because the judgement would apply to all class members, and as a fiduciary the defendant was required to treat all members of the class alike. The court, however, declined to expand the class beyond the 2018 date to include participants beginning in September of 2017, finding that the

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online