ERISA Litigation: How Low Will 'They' Go?

The ERISA litigation field in recent years has seen copycat filings, plagiarism in pleadings, factual flaws, and misleading assertions—but to my eyes, we’ve just hit a new low.

I’m speaking of what appears to be a new strategy, at least in this area of the law. Specifically, a California law firm by the name of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein is in the midst of what appears to be a pre-trial “shakedown.”

More specifically—brought to my attention by Daniel Aronowitz (writing for The Fid Guru Blog)—Leiff Cabraser is currently engaged in a letter writing campaign to plan sponsors, alerting them to a series of assertions about ERISA litigation, allegations about the fees paid by participants in their plans (relative to a standard that has been repeatedly criticized in that context at trial)—all alongside the fact that they’ve allegedly found an as-yet-unnamed plaintiff-participant in the plan in question that is said to be willing to represent a class action alleging the plan’s fiduciary breach. 

Oh—and the purpose of this campaign? Why, according to the letter, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein is “open to discussing our client’s ERISA claims in hopes of reaching an early resolution…before a great deal of time and expense is incurred by any party in litigating this matter.” 

And if the threat of litigation was not sufficient to garner their attention, the letter closes, “This may be the last time that the parties have total control over the outcome of this matter without leaving it up to the Court. A settlement now, before the parties have incurred significant litigation expenses, will benefit both parties.”

Perhaps, but I’m guessing one party in particular.

Sadly, there’s nothing illegal in this approach—even though it smacks of extortion. As for the recipients of these letters, they may well know that the fees their plans/participants are actually paying are much different than the letter suggests, but they may NOT know of the shortcomings in the way the 401(k) Averages Book data is presented (though already noted by more than one court) and applied to their plans (Mr. Aronowitz does an artful job of explaining that, however, and it’s worth a look!). However, they probably ARE aware of the headlines that appear with distressing regularity tracking this type of litigation and may well have a sense of the multi-million-dollar settlements—whose pace and frequency seem to be quickening with each passing month. 

Looking at the arguments presented in most of these actions, it’s hard to dismiss the feeling that most are, in fact, (just) playing for that quick settlement; half of their filings (and most are pretty short) are simply a cut and paste regarding ERISA’s obligations alongside an inference (and sometimes more than an inference) that the plan fiduciaries in question (and those who appointed them) have fallen short of those obligations. They cite plans that are supposedly comparable (at least in size and participant count), extract numbers from government filings that don’t capture the full picture of costs (or services), lay those down next to data from sources known to have shortcomings for those purposes, toss in some “best practice” commentary from a trade publication or two, and rely on the forbearance of the judiciary to open the door to the more intrusive (and costly) process of discovery, deposition, and at some point, trial. 

That’s been the way of this type of litigation for awhile now, where it is simply easier—and, sadly, cheaper—for plan fiduciaries (and their insurers) to just settle and move on, though that process inevitably serves to fund the plaintiffs’ bar’s next “foray.”

Consequently, it’s been refreshing of late to see some federal district courts require more to establish a “plausible” argument to get past that point—to call for not only an accounting of fees, but of the services rendered for those fees. That surely complicates matters for the plaintiffs’ bar—but then, why should they be able to drag firms through the arduous process of discovery and depositions with no more than regurgitated copy, sweeping generalizations, and a table or two cobbled from unrelated sources? 

But now it seems that this law firm at least doesn’t even want to go through that exercise—and why should they if they can simply unleash a correspondence campaign that stands to bring in a payoff from who knows how many plans without even the bother of a court filing or appearance?

I know it’s easy to sit here and carry on as to why plan fiduciaries need to stand up to this kind of practice—to applaud the actions of federal judges who can see what’s going on here, and hope they continue to demand more than mere allegations and flawed assumptions. Unfortunately, this most recent undertaking is perhaps an obvious progression of a sad, regrettable trend.

But I can promise you that if this “works”—it won’t be the last.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD