Nevin's Data "Points"

Plan sponsors spend a lot of time wondering—and worrying—about the “right” way to do things. They rely on the guidance of experts, the insights of publications like ours, the black—though often gray—letter of the law, and sometimes they must rely on the occasionally contradictory adjudications of the courts. Those contradictions have been much in evidence in the series of 401(k) revenue-sharing lawsuits, which, IMHO, continue to suffer from what seems to be a confusing “flexibility” in judicial discernment regarding the standards of fiduciary responsibility and application of ERISA’s 404(c) safe harbors. In fact, it is only a matter of time until some plan sponsor somewhere files an injury claim for whiplash incurred from simply trying to keep up with the direction of these decisions. The most recent example was the case of Gerald George vs. Kraft Foods Global (see Appellate Court Sends Back Kraft Fee Case ), a case the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded (albeit in a split ...

About a week ago, Caterpillar agreed to a $16.5 million settlement of one of those allegedly excessive fee/revenue-sharing lawsuits. It was the first of these suits—launched in September 2006—to come to some sort of “resolution” though, IMHO, it hardly qualifies as such (see “ Caterpillar Ready to Ink $16.5M Fee Suit Settlement ”). That said, the settlement’s terms were not just financial; it also included a series of changes in how Caterpillar agreed to administer the plan and monitor its investments. First off, during a two-year settlement period, Caterpillar agreed to "increase and enhance communication with employees about 401(k) investment options and associated fees,” as well as hiring an independent fiduciary (at least during that same two-year period)—and it has also apparently said that it would detail specific fees charged to participants. Caterpillar says it will avoid retail mutual funds as core investment options for the plans, and that the plan’s recordkeeping fe...

Recently the 7th Circuit responded to requests that it reconsider its opinion in the revenue-sharing/”excessive fee” case of Hecker v. Deere (see “7th Circuit Panel Limits Ruling’s 404(c) Effects” ). The case, of course, was one of the earliest in the litany of those cases to be filed in 2006, and the only one (thus far) to reach the appellate level. To date, the courts have, with little exception, dispensed with these cases harshly. Not that they aren’t entitled to do so, of course, and not that this particular generation of filings isn’t deserving of such treatment, IMHO. From the beginning, the plans targeted seemed better-designed to fill the pockets of plaintiffs’ counsel, if for no other reason than large employers frequently figure that it’s cheaper to settle than to fight (see “IMHO: Fighting Words” ). That said, the courts—including the 7th Circuit—seem to have a more “generous” view of what it takes to earn the protections of ERISA 404(c) than most ERISA lawyers I know. ...