Skip to main content

Watch 'Behind Every Bear Market Is an Opportunity' Webinar recording

Excessive Fee Litigation Banner Image

Excessive Fee Litigation: The Best Defense is Compliance

Photo of author, Monica Garver, CPA, CFP®, AIFA®, CDFA®.
Monica Garver, CPA, CFP®, AIFA®, CDFA®
Director of Retirement Plan Services and Financial Strategist

Excessive fee litigation is increasing at a steady pace and all signs are it will continue to increase. The positive side of this situation is that we now have more caselaw to consider as we work toward compliance in creating a “best defense”. Early caselaw did not reflect the consistency of court decisions. Some court rulings were in direct conflict with those of other courts, and some did not seem well reasoned.

Recent excessive fee caselaw does help us determine a more solid foundation for liability mitigation. Clearly, it is most important to have a robust process for making prudent investment decisions, as per ERISA “procedural prudence”. This has always been the case, but now we have more clarity in how this process should be conducted. Courts want to see evidence that based on the information that the fiduciaries had at the time they made their decision; a robust structured process was followed. As always, it is crucial that you follow your investment policy statement and document your process and reasons for all fiduciary level decisions.

Related Insights
Revenue Sharing Pic

Revenue Sharing Decisions

As a result of the significant rise in revenue sharing litigation it behooves plan fiduciaries to confirm and document the prudence and appropriateness of any revenue sharing arrangement.

Read More
401k Match Pic

Have You Met Your Match?

Just how important is a 401(k) match to your employees? It appears to be top of mind, according to Principal’s 2021 Retirement Security Survey. The study’s results show that the match matters most. Learn more.

Read More
Erisa Court Pic

Is Participant Choice a “Get Out of ERISA Court Free Card”?

The question before the court in Hughes v. Northwestern University was the plausibility of a breach of fiduciary duty claim stated by current and former participants in two university retirement plans. SCOTUS ruled that the petitioners in the case, originally dismissed by a district court and upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, did in fact plausibly state their claim. Essentially, the court asserted that the provision of sufficient investment choices to participants does not automatically exculpate fiduciaries from imprudent actions.

Read More
Play