401(k) Investment Option Challenge Heads To Ninth Circuit

Jackson Lewis P.C.
Contact

Recently, in Davis v. Salesforce.com, a California district court dismissed for the second time claims alleging that the defendant 401(k) plan fiduciaries breached their ERISA fiduciary duties by retaining overpriced and underperforming investment options on the plan’s investment menu. Our previous post on that dismissal is available here.

That decision is one in a deluge of similar, recent rulings setting forth differing and sometimes discordant opinions on what is required to state a plausible ERISA fiduciary breach claim challenging defined contribution plan investment menus and recordkeeping fees.  Some, like Salesforce.com, have declined plaintiffs’ invitation to second-guess ERISA fiduciaries’ decision-making and have dismissed the claims on the grounds that allegations that cheaper or better performing, but dissimilar investments were available on the market does not raise an inference that the fiduciaries breached any fiduciary duty by retaining the plan’s investments.  Other courts have sustained the claims, allowing plaintiffs to seek discovery on the fiduciaries’ processes for selecting investment options and service providers.

Although the majority of Circuit courts that have addressed these issues have affirmed dismissal,  some have reversed dismissal and remanded for further consideration.  Thus, the noticed appeal in Salesforce.com joins the list of anticipated decisions that could provide clarity on this issue. The Second Circuit is queued to address similar issues in Cunningham v. Cornell University, et al. and Sacerdote v. New York University, and the U.S. Supreme Court has requested the views of the Acting Solicitor General on the pending petition for certiorari of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University.  Jackson Lewis’ ERISA Complex Litigation Group is closely monitoring these matters.

The referenced cases are: Davis v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 20-cv-01753 (N.D. Cal.); Cunningham v. Cornell University, et al., No. 21-88 (2d Cir.);  Sacerdote v. New York University, No. 18-2707-cv (2d Cir.); and Hughes v. Northwestern University, et al., No. 19-1401 (U.S.).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Jackson Lewis P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Jackson Lewis P.C.
Contact
more
less

Jackson Lewis P.C. on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.