Defined Contribution

The Supreme Court Decides Not to Decide

The Supreme Court Decides Not to Decide
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.

Posted by

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

2021—Starting Off with Gusto!

Kristin Bradbury
How the economy did in 1Q21, and the outlook ahead.
Defined Benefit

What We Found in Our Latest COVID-19 Survey of Investment Managers

Amy Jones
The 3rd edition of our Coping with COVID-19 survey of investment managers focuses on plans for office reopenings and vaccination policies.
Defined Benefit

The Story Behind Callan’s 2021 Capital Markets Assumptions

Capital Markets Research
An explanation of Callan's 2021-2030 Capital Markets Assumptions, how they were developed, and what changed from last year's projections.
Defined Benefit

Bloomberg Barclays Pricing Time Change and What It Means for Institutional Investors

Kyle Fekete
Asset owners, investment managers, and other parties may experience discrepancies in reporting point-in-time pricing or performance as a result.
Defined Benefit

Why the Yield Curve Is Really Curving

Dario Buechi
As prospects for growth have brightened, yields on longer maturity bonds have risen while short-term rates have been anchored by the Fed.
Defined Contribution

DOL Announces It Won't Enforce ESG, Proxy-Voting Rules

Thomas Shingler
Both of the rules were published in the final months of the Trump administration.
Defined Benefit

What You Need to Know About the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative

ESG Consulting Group
Under the initiative, asset managers work with the companies they invest in to set targets to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Defined Benefit

An Uneven Recovery and an Unreliable Narrator

Jay Kloepfer
The path to recovery in the U.S. and most developed economies will likely see the level of GDP regain its pre-pandemic peak in mid-2021.
Defined Contribution

A Year Out of Time: Our Survey Tracks How DC Plans Operated in 2020

Jana Steele
The Callan 2021 DC Survey covers the SECURE and CARES Acts, and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the key tenets of DC plan management....
Defined Contribution

Breaking the Ice on Retirement Income Solutions—A Conversation Starter

Todd Carabasi
While prevalence is low, DC plans are increasingly adding a discussion of retirement income solutions to their agendas.