×
Search

866-540-5505

Se Habla Espanol
Menu
Search

Our Blog

Home/Blog/Supreme Court Greenlights Excessive Investment Fees Lawsuit, Sides with 401(k) Participants

Supreme Court Greenlights Excessive Investment Fees Lawsuit, Sides with 401(k) Participants

On January 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that Plaintiffs, 401(k) plan participants of Northwestern University (“Northwestern” or the “University”), could proceed with their lawsuit against Northwestern and the administrators of the University’s 401(k) retirement plan (the “Plan”) for alleged mismanagement of the Plan.

Northwestern, like many corporations and non-profit organizations, offers a defined contribution retirement plan, whereby eligible employees set aside a certain percentage of their income to be invested for retirement. Importantly, the employer offers a menu of investments from which employees can select, based on their personal retirement goals and risk preferences. Employees then pay investment management fees on their chosen investments, typically in the form of a percentage of their assets.  

Defined contribution plans are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), a federal statute establishing standards for plan administrators to ensure that investments offered to employees are prudently selected and monitored.

The Plaintiffs in the Northwestern lawsuit allege that the University violated ERISA’s fiduciary requirements by: (1) failing to monitor and control the fees participants paid, resulting in excessive costs; (2) offering more than 400 investment options, causing participant confusion; and (3) charging participants for “retail” share classes, instead of the cheaper and readily available “institutional” share classes.

In 2017, the University filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Focusing on the element of employee choice, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that because the University offered such a wide array of investment options, including the low-cost index funds Plaintiffs prefer, it “eliminat[ed] any claim” that plan participants were forced to accept poor and potentially imprudent investment options.

Plaintiffs appealed the Seventh Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. The Court granted certiorari in July 2021, heard oral arguments in December, and issued its decision on January 24, 2022.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, [1] explained that the lower courts incorrectly focused on participant choice, clarifying that such a broad focus was “inconsistent” with the “context-specific” inquiry that ERISA requires and emphasizing that ERISA creates a duty to monitor all plan investments and remove imprudent ones. As the Court clearly stated, “[i]f the fiduciaries fail to remove an imprudent investment from the plan within a reasonable time, they breach their duty.”

The case will now be remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for reconsideration, including the possibility of a jury trial.

The Court’s ruling has already impacted similar ERISA cases throughout the country. Just two days after the Court’s decision, a federal judge in Georgia rejected a motion to dismiss filed by Columbus Regional Healthcare System Inc., citing Northwestern as controlling precedent. Similarly, a federal judge in Wisconsin cited Northwestern in sustaining a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit against Froedtert Health Inc.

Updates to this blog will be provided as courts continue to interpret the Northwestern holding. The ruling is currently captioned Hughes v. Northwestern University, 595 U.S. ___ (2022).

The legal team at Miller Shah LLP has significant experience representing ERISA matters. If you have any questions regarding this subject or this post, please contact Alec Berin (ajberin@millershah.com) or Jonathan Dilger (jadilger@millershah.com). The firm can also be reached toll-free at (866) 540-5505.


[1] Justice Barrett took no part in the case.

Share Post:
facebooktwitterLinkedin

Categories

Archives

Contact
Miller Shah LLP

While this website provides general information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer. To schedule a meeting with an attorney, please call 866-540-5505 or complete the intake form to email us.
Alec J. Berin - Associate

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Alfonso Vilaboa - Of Counsel

NJ Hoboken |

Anika S. Keuning - Project Analyst

CA San Diego | 866-540-5505

Anna D’Agostino - Associate

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Betsy Ferling-Hitriz - Legal Assistant

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Bruce D. Parke - Partners

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Caroline Soper - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Christopher A. Miller - Associate

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Deborah C. England - Of Counsel

CA San Francisco | 866-540-5505

Edward H. Glenn - Of Counsel

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Edward M. Fitzgerald - Staff Attorney

CA Los Angeles | 866-540-5505

Elena M. DiBattista - Legal Assistant

FL Fort Lauderdale | 866-540-5505

Elise M. Wilson - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Eric L. Young - Of Counsel

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Finn M. Mutrux - Office Staff

CA Los Angeles | 866-540-5505

Gina S. Demetriades - Office Staff

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Heidi A. Wendel - Of Counsel

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

James C. Shah - Partners

CA Los Angeles | 866-540-5505

James E. Miller - Partners

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Jayne A. Goldstein - Partners

FL Fort Lauderdale | 866-540-5505

Jillian M. Boyce - Office Staff

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Jocelyn McNamara - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Johanna C. Richter - Law Clerk

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

John C. Roberts - Associate

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Jonathan Dilger - Office Staff

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Julie M. Capito - Legal Assistant

CA San Francisco | 866-540-5505

Katie Edwards - Legal Assistant

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Kolin C. Tang - Partners

CA San Diego | 866-540-5505

Laurie Rubinow - Partners

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Madison Gregg - Associate

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Marialisa Samo - Legal Assistant

CA San Diego | 866-540-5505

Mark Xiao - Associate

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Natalie Finkelman Bennett - Partners

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Nathan C. Zipperian - Partners

FL Fort Lauderdale | 866-540-5505

Nicholas Day - Of Counsel

NJ Hoboken | 866-540-5505

Nicholas K. Ono - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Raffaele Scalcione - Of Counsel

IT Milan | 866-540-5505

Reilly K. Powers - Project Analyst

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Robert W. Biela - Staff Attorney

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Ronald S. Kravitz - Of Counsel

CA San Francisco | 866-540-5505

Rrita Osmani - Project Analyst

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Shuping Li - Project Analyst

NY New York City | 866-540-5505

Stephen T. Rutkowski - Law Clerk

CT Chester | 866-540-5505

Sue Moss - Legal Assistant

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505

Sydney D. Finlay - Associate

CA San Diego | 866-540-5505

Tina Moukoulis - Staff Attorney

PA Philadelphia | 866-540-5505