Tussey v ABB Inc.: A Lesson in Fiduciary Duty

by King & Spalding

[authors, Eleanor Banister, Atlanta, +1 404 572 4930, ebanister@kslaw.com and James P. Cowles*, Atlanta, +1 404 572 3455, jcowles@kslaw.com.]

On March 31, 2012, a federal district court in Missouri delivered to a large manufacturer and institutional fiduciary an expensive lesson in ERISA’s fiduciary obligations in Tussey v. ABB, Inc.  The plaintiffs are current and former employees of ABB, Inc. (“ABB”), a manufacturer of power and automatic equipment.  The defendants are ABB, Inc., two committees responsible for administering ABB’s 401(k) plans, Fidelity Management Trust Company and Fidelity Management & Research Company and John W. Cutler, Jr. (the Director of the ABB group that served as the staff to the plan investment committee). 

The case is a lesson in what can happen when plan fiduciaries fall asleep at the switch. 

Brief Background 

ABB, Inc. sponsors two 401(k) plans, one for collectively bargained employees and one for non-collectively bargained employees.  The Pension Review Committee is the named fiduciary of the plans and is responsible for selecting and monitoring the investment options.  The Employee Benefits Committee of ABB, Inc. is the named plan administrator.  The Pension and Thrift Management Group of ABB, Inc., which Mr. Cutler directed, acts as the staff of the Pension Review Committee. 

Fidelity began recordkeeping for the plans in 1995.  Initially, Fidelity’s recordkeeping fees were based on a per participant fee charged to the plan and deducted from participant accounts.  By 2001, Fidelity was primarily compensated for its services through revenue sharing. 

Lesson 1 -- Fiduciaries must Monitor Plan Recordkeeping Fees.

The court found that the ABB fiduciaries never calculated the amount of the recordkeeping fees paid to Fidelity Management Trust Company (“Fidelity”) via the revenue sharing arrangements it had with ABB plan investments. 

The court also found that the ABB fiduciaries did not investigate the market price for similar recordkeeping services and did not benchmark the cost of recordkeeping fees prior to entering into the revenue sharing arrangement with Fidelity.  Some years later, the ABB fiduciaries did benchmark the cost of recordkeeping, but they ignored their own consultant’s conclusion that Fidelity’s fees were too high.  In fact, the court found that the amount Fidelity was receiving for recordkeeping services through revenue sharing arrangements was far in excess of a reasonable recordkeeping fee, in some years by as much as 100%.

The ABB defendants argued that they monitored fees by monitoring the expense ratios of the investments offered in the 401(k) plans.  The court pointed out that the expense ratios do not show how much revenue is flowing from the investment company to the recordkeeper or what the competitive market is for recordkeeping fees. 

The ABB defendants also argued that revenue sharing permitted participants with larger account balances to pay a proportionately larger share of the recordkeeping fee, a progressivity model for compensating recordkeepers.  However, the court found that the ABB defendants did not engage in any process for evaluating whether the revenue sharing model actually resulted in progressivity and the ABB defendants provided no evidence that progressivity is in the best interests of plan participants.

The ABB defendants also argued that revenue sharing reasonably permitted risk sharing between Fidelity and ABB, Inc. because when the assets of the plans declined, Fidelity shares the loss in revenue sharing, whereas when the assets of the plans increase, revenue sharing increases for Fidelity.  According to the court, the problem with this argument is that Fidelity requested additional fees be paid when revenue sharing declined, but the ABB defendants did not request refunds from Fidelity when revenue sharing increased.

The court concluded that the ABB fiduciaries were not concerned about the cost of recordkeeping unless it increased ABB’s out of pocket expenses or caused the plans to be less attractive to its employees by deducting recordkeeping fees from each participant account.  The court observed that revenue sharing enabled ABB to hide the true cost of recordkeeping from plan participants. 

Lesson 2 -- Follow Plan Documents.

The plans’ investment policy statement required that any rebates associated with plan investments would be used to offset or reduce the cost of providing plan administrative services.  Revenue sharing would have been a “rebate”, but in this case, rather than offset the cost of administrative services, such as recordkeeping, all revenue sharing was paid to Fidelity. 

The investment policy statement also incorporated a direction that when a selected mutual fund offered a choice of share classes, the class with the lowest cost of participation should be selected.  However, the court found that when the ABB fiduciaries selected the class of shares available in the plans, they chose share classes that provided more revenue sharing to Fidelity.  The court found that the ABB fiduciaries failed to follow the investment policy statement and imprudently chose more expensive funds in order to prevent the imposition of a per-participant hard-dollar recordkeeping fee. 

The investment policy also incorporated a very specific process for removing an investment fund, which involved examining a three to five-year period of investment return and determining if there are five years of underperformance, and if so, place the fund onto a “watch list,” and then removing the fund within six months if the investment return does not improve. 

The court found that the Pension Review Committee, which was responsible for selecting plan investments, failed to follow its own procedures in replacing a non-Fidelity fund Fidelity funds that paid Fidelity more revenue sharing.  Instead, the Pension Review Committee acted on the recommendation of Mr. Cutler, the Director of Pension & Thrift Management Group, and performed only scant research on the fund being removed.

Lesson 3 -- Don’t Allow One Plan to Subsidize the Cost of Another Plan

During the course of negotiations with Fidelity in conjunction with removing a Fidelity fund as a plan investment option, ABB obtained an evaluation of Fidelity fees from Mercer, an outside consulting firm.  The report issued by Mercer concluded that ABB was overpaying for recordkeeping services and that the revenue sharing from the 401(k) plans appeared to be subsidizing other services provided to ABB by Fidelity.  Additionally, an email from Fidelity to an ABB employee responsible for negotiating Fidelity’s contract suggested that Fidelity offered services for ABB's health and welfare plan at below market cost and did not charge administration fees for ABB's non-qualified plans, but rather, Fidelity “absorbed” those fees. 

The court held that the ABB employee who received the email failed to make a good faith effort to investigate and prevent the revenue sharing from the 401(k) plans from subsidizing other plans.  Once the ABB employee became aware that the recordkeeping fees appeared to be subsidizing ABB's other plans, he had a fiduciary obligation to investigate and prevent any future subsidy.  Instead, the court found that the ABB employee failed to take any steps to do so and ABB continued to select investments to ensure revenue neutrality for Fidelity and to pay above market for recordkeeping fees.

Lesson 4 -- Float Income Belongs to the Plans

The court also found that the Fidelity defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plans by failing to allocate the interest earned when contributions and disbursements are held temporarily in overnight accounts (the “float income”) exclusively for the benefit of the plans.

According to the court, Fidelity distributed the float income attributable to the 401(k) plans to investment options not the plans.  It is not clear from the opinion whether the investment options that received the float were investment options held by the plans.  According to the court, since float income constitutes Plan assets, distributing these assets to the investment options rather than the plans was a breach of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibilities.  The court also found that the Fidelity defendants used some of the float to pay expenses of Fidelity that should have been borne by Fidelity, not the plans.


The court found that all of the ABB defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (1) failing to monitor plan recordkeeping costs, (2) failing to negotiate rebates from Fidelity , (3) selecting higher cost classes of investment options when lower cost options were available, and (4) imprudently substituting certain Fidelity investment options for existing plan investment options.  The court found ABB and the Employee Benefits Committee breached their fiduciary duty when they  allowed the 401(k) plans to subsidize the expenses of other ABB plans, including health and welfare plans and nonqualified plans.  The court also found that the Fidelity defendants breached their fiduciary duties when they failed to allocate the income received from overnight investment of plan funds exclusively for the benefit of the ABB, Inc. 401(k) plans. 

The court found the defendants liable for a variety of ERISA fiduciary violations resulting in damages of nearly $40 million.  The damages in this case were significant, but could have been worse.  The plaintiffs argued that the court should adopt a “global damages theory,” which would measure the damages to the 401(k) plans by the investment return on the ABB Inc. defined benefit plan over the period during which the fiduciary breaches occurred.  However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ global investment theory of damages and instead based damages on the particular amount of the loss resulting from each particular breach.

Action Items

The conduct that resulted in the fiduciary breaches described above was easily preventable by greater diligence on the part of the ABB fiduciaries, both in following their own plan documents and in observing the marketplace.  While the facts of this case may be extreme, it should serve as a wake-up call to all plan fiduciaries.  For example,

  • Plan fiduciaries should regularly “benchmark” the cost of plan services to obtain objective evidence of the market price for those services;
  • Where vendors provide multiple services to an employer and receive compensation through revenue sharing, plan fiduciaries should ensure that one plan is not subsidizing the services provided to another plan or the employer; and
  • Plan fiduciaries should periodically review plan documents, particularly investment policy statements, to be sure that (1) fiduciary actions are consistent with the stated policies and (2) to be sure the documents are up to date and reflect the responsible fiduciary’s intent.

Unfortunately, ERISA does not prescribe any specific time period for conducting benchmarking studies or reviews of plan documents.  The appropriate period will depend on your particular facts and the nature of the services under consideration.  King & Spalding will be glad to help you asses your particular situation or answer any questions you may have about this article.

*Non-lawyer Employee Benefits Consultant

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.

© King & Spalding | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

King & Spalding

King & Spalding on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.