Employee Benefits News examines legal developments that impact the employee benefits and executive compensation employers provide, including federal and state legislation, rules from federal...
Cornell University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology can’t escape proposed class actions challenging the administrative fees and investment options in their multibillion-dollar retirement plans ( Cunningham v. Cornell Univ. , S.D.N.Y., No. 1:16-cv-06525-PKC, order denying in part motion to dismiss 9/29/17 and Tracey v. Mass. Inst. of Tech. , 2017 BL 347217, D. Mass., No. 16-11620-NMG, rejecting in part and accepting in part magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 9/29/17 ).
A federal judge Sept. 29 refused to dismiss key portions of the lawsuit against Cornell, including claims that the school was wrong to use multiple record keepers and to offer high-fee actively managed funds and certain underperforming investment options. However, the judge dismissed charges that Cornell shouldn’t have offered so many investment options and shouldn’t have agreed to a “lock-in” relationship with one of its record keepers, TIAA.
On the same day, a different federal judge kept a similar lawsuit against MIT alive, refusing to dismiss claims that MIT acted imprudently by charging excessive record-keeping fees and failing to choose the least expensive share classes for some of the plan’s investment options. The judge’s ruling, which adopted much of the reasoning in a magistrate judge’s 59-page report and recommendation, included no legal analysis but said that an order with accompanying legal reasoning “will follow.”
In the past year, 16 prominent colleges were targeted by class actions challenging the fees and investment lineups of their retirement plans. Complaints against NYU, Columbia, Duke, Emory, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Chicago had varying degrees of early success. On Sept. 21, the University of Pennsylvania became the only one of the lot so far to win complete dismissal of a lawsuit challenging its retirement plan.
In the Cornell case, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York largely followed the decision in the case against NYU, which was issued by a different judge on the same court.
However, Castel departed from the NYU decision on one important point: whether a retirement plan fiduciary can breach its duties by offering higher-cost retail shares of mutual funds when identical, institutional share classes were available at a lower cost. This claim was dismissed against NYU, but Castel allowed it to proceed against Cornell, saying that it may be a fiduciary breach to offer retail share classes without investigating the possibility of lower-cost institutional share classes.
The decision in the MIT case was written by Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Although Gorton largely followed the magistrate judge’s report, his ruling differed from the report on three points.
Specifically, Gorton said the MIT employees could proceed with a prohibited transaction claim but not with claims of either insufficient fiduciary monitoring or having a “subjective intent to benefit a party in interest.”
Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP represents the plan participants suing both Cornell and MIT, along with Fair Work P.C. in the MIT case. Mayer Brown LLP represents Cornell. Goodwin Procter LLP and O’Melveny & Myers LLP represents MIT.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jacklyn Wille in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jo-el J. Meyer at email@example.com
Text of the Cornell decision is at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Cunningham_v_Cornell_University_et_al_Docket_No_116cv06525_SDNY_A/4?doc_id=X1Q6NTIEST82&fmt=pdf. Text of the MIT decision is at http://bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Tracey_v_Mass_Inst_of_Tech_No_1611620NMG_2017_BL_347217_D_Mass_Se?doc_id=X1TFGQ6O0000N.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)