Defined Contribution

The Supreme Court Decides Not to Decide

The Supreme Court Decides Not to Decide
clock
3 min 7 sec

The U.S. Supreme Court has an unusual number of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) petitions before it in the 2019-20 term. Two recent decisions may increase uncertainty around the use of actively managed funds, as well as the inclusion of company stock, in a defined contribution (DC) plan’s investment lineup.

Putnam Investments v. Brotherston: More than 30 companies have been sued over the affiliated mutual funds in their 401(k) plans since 2015. In this lawsuit, Putnam was accused of engaging in self-dealing by including expensive, underperforming proprietary funds in its 401(k) plan. Initially, the federal court heard only the plaintiffs’ arguments and, after the plaintiffs had rested their case, Putnam requested that the case be dismissed—arguing that the plaintiffs had not proven that the plan suffered any losses. The court agreed and, as a result, did not rule on whether Putnam had breached its fiduciary duties.

That ruling was vacated in part by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded back to the lower court for further review. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that the burden is on Putnam to disprove that plan losses resulted from the alleged breaches. Of note, the appellate court also suggested in its decision that plans could stave off litigation by steering clear of actively managed funds.

Putnam asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review certain questions of law. The first dealt with which party was responsible to prove the cause of a loss. The appellate courts have split on this issue. The second issue requested that the Supreme Court opine on the comparison of active and passive benchmarks.

The court denied Putnam’s petition, leaving these questions unresolved, and Putnam will now have to defend itself in the lower courts.

IBM v. Jander: The plaintiffs alleged that IBM imprudently managed company stock investments in one of its retirement plans. The lower courts found that IBM had violated guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2014 decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.

The Dudenhoeffer decision sought to balance the fiduciary duties outlined in ERISA with the SEC duties of corporate officers with three broad principles:

  • ERISA’s duty of prudence cannot require a fiduciary to violate securities laws (e.g., selling company stock in a retirement plan based on insider information).
  • Courts must balance ERISA rules with the SEC’s “complex insider trading and corporate disclosure requirements.”
  • Courts must analyze whether a plaintiff “plausibly alleged” that a prudent fiduciary would not have viewed an alternative action as more likely to harm the fund than to help.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to vacate and remand the decision was based on the finding that “petitioners (fiduciaries of the employee stock ownership plan at issue here) and the federal government (presenting the views of the SEC as well as the Department of Labor) focused their arguments primarily upon other matters” that should be reviewed by the appellate court. The lack of clarity raises questions about the correct application of Dudenhoeffer at the pleadings stage and may encourage additional litigation.

Bottom Line: The current litigation environment highlights risks and opportunities for plan sponsors. By declining to review Putnam v. Brotherston, the high court leaves the matter of which party has the burden of proof in such suits unresolved. By remanding IBM v. Jander, the court leaves an open question for plan fiduciaries regarding how to balance SEC regulations regarding insider trading and ERISA fiduciary duties with respect to company stock held within an ERISA plan.

Plan sponsors should continue to carefully monitor investment options, review plan fees, and follow any written governance documentation, including the investment policy statement. Additionally, plan fiduciaries should document the process and decisions made around vendor selection and fees to demonstrate their due diligence.

Share
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Related Posts
Defined Contribution

Will Boring Still Be Beautiful?

James Veneruso
A simple, "boring," glidepath beat a diversified one over the last 10 years. Will that continue?
Defined Benefit

DOL Issues Final Rule on Selecting Plan Investments

Thomas Shingler
In the final rule, the DOL modified the ESG rule, most notably removing references to ESG.
Defined Contribution

IRS Announces Updated Retirement Plan Limits for 2021

Jamie McAllister
The IRS announced the updated retirement plan limits for 2021.
Defined Benefit

Survey: ESG Incorporation Nearly Doubles in 5 Years; Those Considering It Jumps

Alex Hoy
A third of respondents not yet incorporating ESG were considering doing so, the highest in the survey’s history and nearly triple the level in 2019.
Defined Contribution

DOL Proposes Tightened Proxy Voting Guidelines

Patrick Wisdom
The department’s new proposal dovetails with SEC guidance finalized in 2020 and would create a refined set of circumstances in which plan fiduciarie...
Defined Benefit

Stocks Rebound in 2Q20; Fixed Income Sees More Modest Returns

Kristin Bradbury
U.S. stocks posted double-digit returns, with big gains in global ex-U.S. markets. Treasuries were range-bound during the quarter and most fixed incom...
Defined Contribution

Fine-Tuning Implementation of the CARES Act

Jana Steele
The IRS has issued two notices and a FAQ to clarify how defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors should implement the provisions of the act, touching o...
Defined Contribution

DOL Calls for Stricter Rules Around ESG Investing in Retirement Plans

Thomas Shingler
Defined Contribution

Our DC Index Had a Noteworthy First Quarter

Patrick Wisdom
Defined Contribution

DOL Issues Common-Sense Information Letter About Private Equity in DC Plans

James Veneruso