Advertisement

May 24, 2013

ERISA Fiduciary Breach for Failure to Monitor Fees Leads to $35 Million Class Action Hit

Greenberg Traurig
Jay P. Lechner
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Administrative & Regulatory / Criminal Law / Business Crimes / Estates & Trusts / Financial Institutions & Banking / Labor & Employment / Litigation / Trial Practice
All Federal
Printer-friendly
Email this Article
Download PDF
Reprints & Permissions

In the first class action over 401(k) fees to be tried and decided on its merits, a Missouri federal district court ruled in March that manufacturer ABB Inc. breached its Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties — and must pay $35.2 million to the plaintiff class for (1) failing to monitor the recordkeeping fees and revenue-sharing payments made to the plan’s trust company, (2) failing to negotiate rebates to offset or reduce the cost of providing administrative services to plan participants, and (3) replacing an actively balanced mutual fund with the trust company’s target date fund that generated more in revenue sharing for the trust company.

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Jay P. Lechner
Associate

Jay P. Lechner is a board certified labor and employment lawyer, specializing in the defense of discrimination, whistleblower, harassment, and wage and hour cases, as well as restrictive covenants, retaliation, related state tort and contract issues, and other types of employment litigation.

lechnerj@gtlaw.com
813-318-5700
www.gtlaw.com

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.