July 12, 2020

Volume X, Number 194

July 10, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Diversification and Prudence Claims Targeting A Single Stock Fund in a 401(k) Plan

The Fifth Circuit in Schweitzer v. Inv. Comm. of Phillips 66 Sav. Plan dismissed claims against 401(k) plan fiduciaries related to allowing plan participants to hold a single stock that was not an employer security as a plan investment alternative.  No. 18-cv-20379, 2020 WL 2611542 (5th Cir. May 22, 2020).  The Court held that:  (i) 401(k) plan fiduciaries had a duty to ensure that the plan’s investment line-up was diversified, but no duty to ensure that participants actually diversified their portfolios; (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), effectively foreclosed claims that the plan fiduciaries should have taken action on the basis of public information that suggested risk from holding the stock; and (iii) ERISA does not prohibit an individual account plan, like a 401(k) plan, from offering a single-stock fund.

As discussed below, the Court’s decision offers meaningful guidance to fiduciaries of participant-directed plans and, more specifically, to those evaluating what to do with a company stock fund after a spinoff or divestiture.

Background

ConocoPhillips maintained a 401(k) plan with two employer stock funds that invested in ConocoPhillips stock.  ConocoPhillips spun off certain operations to Phillips 66, which was not affiliated with ConocoPhillips.  The spinoff resulted in the transfer of over 10,000 ConocoPhillips employees to Phillips 66, and their 401(k) accounts were transferred to a separate plan sponsored by Phillips 66.

Many of the transferred employees had invested in the ConocoPhillips stock funds.  Those investments transferred in-kind to the Phillips 66 plan.  As a result, the Phillips 66 Plan held two funds with a single stock that was not an employer security.  The Phillips 66 plan’s fiduciaries closed the funds to new investments, and participants were allowed to sell at any time, but those who did not want to sell were allowed to hold their investments in the funds.  During the five-year period that followed the spinoff, ConocoPhillips’s share price increased significantly and then decreased just as significantly.

Participants in the Phillips 66 Plan filed a putative class action complaint alleging two ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims:  breach of the duty of diversification by offering the ConocoPhillips stock funds; and breach of the duty of prudence for failing to remove the ConocoPhillips stock funds.  The participants pointed to the inherent risk of investing in a single stock and publicly available “red flags” that purportedly signaled additional risk.

The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.  The district court first found that the diversification claim failed because participants could no longer invest in the ConocoPhillips stock funds and participants could remove their assets from the funds at any time.  The district court concluded that the claim was really an issue of prudence and whether the plan fiduciaries should have forced participants to divest their holdings from the funds.  The district court then evaluated the participants’ breach of the duty of prudence claim and concluded that it was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dudenhoeffer.

The Fifth Circuit’s Opinion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims.  To begin with, the Court concluded that the diversification claim failed because the complaint lacked any allegation that the fiduciaries failed to offer a diverse menu of investment options or otherwise warn the participants of the risk of assembling a non-diversified portfolio.  In so ruling, the Court rejected the participants’ reliance on authority addressing diversification requirements for defined benefit plans.  The court explained that, for a defined contribution plan, a fiduciary’s responsibility is to create a diverse menu of available investment options.  Individual options on the menu do not necessarily have to be diverse, and allocation of assets among the available options is the responsibility of each participant.

The Court next turned to the participants’ claim that the fiduciaries breached the duty of prudence by allowing participants to hold their investments in the ConocoPhillips stock funds after the spinoff.  First, the Court concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dudenhoeffer precluded plaintiffs’ claim that the plan fiduciaries should have known from publicly available information that ConocoPhillips’ share price did not adequately reflect the stock’s risk.

Nevertheless, the Court noted that, under some circumstances, it could be imprudent to keep a single-stock fund on the investment menu.  The Court determined that Dudenhoeffer did not control here because this was not a claim about whether the plan fiduciaries should have taken action based on publicly available information and did not involve employer securities.  The Court concluded that the fiduciaries were not imprudent because they had closed the ConocoPhillips stock funds to new investments and adequately warned participants of the risks of not diversifying in the summary plan description.

Proskauer’s Perspective

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling approves a common approach for handling company stock funds after a spinoff or similar divestiture.  Nevertheless, plan fiduciaries should continue to monitor all investment options, and to keep investment disclosures up to date, to ensure that participants have the information necessary to make sound investment decisions.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP. National Law Review, Volume X, Number 181

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Benjamin Flaxenburg, attorney, Proskauer, Louisiana, Employee benefits, executive compensation, labor and employment law
Attorney

Benjamin O. Flaxenburg is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Ben served as an extern for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana and as a judicial extern to the Honorable Nannette Jolivette Brown at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Ben was also a managing editor of the Tulane Maritime Law Journal, a member of the Tulane’s Moot Court Board and...

504-310-2038
Russell L Hirschhorn ERISA Litigation, employee benefits attorney, Proskauer
Senior Counsel

Russell Hirschhorn is a Senior Counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department, where he focuses on complex ERISA litigation and advises employers, fiduciaries and trustees on ERISA benefit and fiduciary issues. 

Russell represents employers, plan sponsors, plans, trustees, directed trustees and fiduciaries in all phases of litigation, arbitration and mediation involving employee benefits, including class action and individual claims relating to ERISA’s fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction provisions, denials of claims for benefits, severance plans, ERISA Section 510, retiree benefits, ERISA preemption of state law claims, plan investment losses, cash balance plan conversions, plan amendments or terminations, withdrawal liability, and employer contributions to multiemployer funds

212.969.3286
Seth Safra, Proskauer Law Firm, Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation and ERISA Litigation Attorney
Partner

Seth Safra is a partner in the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group, where he counsels clients on all aspects of employee benefits and executive compensation.

Seth advises clients on ERISA and other related laws with respect to the design and administration of qualified and non-qualitied retirement plans, including defined contribution (including 401(k) and ESOPs) and cash balance plans. In addition, Seth counsels clients on their health & welfare plans, including advising on issues related to health care reform.

...
202-416-5840