Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

the supreme court and the evil or stupid fiduciary

I think we all hope the workers win this case even if we consider ourselves Capitalists (note capital C)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/401-k-plan-really-owes-013222203.html

Comments

  • edited October 2014
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Hey Mo: I thought everyone one in 401-k's paid administrative fees one way or the other ? No free lunch so to speak !
    Derf


  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • msf
    edited October 2014
    Now you're getting close to the interesting part of the case. Derf is right - the piper gets paid one way or the other.

    Some of what's at issue here is whether the employer could have the employees pay. The plan docs say no, but the docs also give employer the responsibility to interpret what "employer pays fees" means.

    So, if employees pay implicitly (via higher retail fund fees and a kickback to the plan operator), does that violate the terms of the plan?

    The employer is obviously taking the position that the requirement that the employer pay the fees refers only to explicit fees; those fees that are billed directly to the employer.

    The case is not so much about retail vs. institutional class shares.

    Where is all the outrage with Vanguard using investor class shares in its target date funds? Same idea - Vanguard doesn't charge the investor a management fee for those funds; instead it gets paid for its costs by charging higher (investor class share) fees in the underlying funds.

    The question of three year limit is in a sense a side matter. I think it's interesting, but then again, I think most stuff is interesting. As I recall (it's been a little while since I read the case) ERISA does not support a continuing violations theory argument. In plain English, that means that the fact that the act is still ongoing (a continuing violation) doesn't save you from the three year statute of limitations.

    The appeal claims (rightly I feel) that it's not a single ongoing act (that started more than three years ago), but repeated breaches of fiduciary duty. Every time a plan trustee acts or doesn't act, he or she is making a decision, which must be in the best interest of the employees.

    This argument won't get damages going back more than the three year limit, but it should allow damages for the past three years, even on funds that were originally selected more than three years ago. Just MHO - I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV.
Sign In or Register to comment.