Employee Benefits News examines legal developments that impact the employee benefits and executive compensation employers provide, including federal and state legislation, rules from federal...
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other prominent industry groups are backing Wells Fargo & Co. in an appeal challenging the in-house target date funds in the company’s 401(k) plan ( Meiners v. Wells Fargo & Co., 8th Cir., No. 17-2397, amicus briefs filed 10/27/17 ).
The groups are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to uphold a decision dismissing a challenge to the affiliated target date funds in the 401(k) plan for Wells Fargo employees. The employee who sued said the company intentionally boosted the 401(k) assets invested in its target date funds—which allegedly carried high fees and performed poorly—by making the funds the default investment option for the plan. Industry groups are pushing back in briefs filed Oct. 27, saying that Wells Fargo’s conduct was reasonable and that 401(k) investors shouldn’t get to force companies into expensive litigation and discovery over such unremarkable allegations.
The dispute between Wells Fargo and its employees is poised to become the first appeals court decision in the recent flurry of lawsuits targeting financial companies that put their own investment products in their workers’ 401(k) plans. Out of more than two dozen financial companies to have been sued in the past few years, Wells Fargo is the only one to have seen all claims against it dismissed on their merits. Many judges have ruled against the financial companies, refusing to dismiss cases against American Century, Insperity, Edward Jones, BB&T, Allianz, and Franklin Templeton.
The groups, which include the American Benefits Council, the ERISA Industry Committee, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, emphasize the problems that will arise if lawsuits like this are allowed to move past the motion-to-dismiss stage. The Chamber and its partners said it would create an “avalanche of new suits supported only by bare allegations.” SIFMA argued that if financial companies are made to go through the “expensive and disruptive” discovery process, they’ll stop giving their employees access to affiliated funds in their 401(k) accounts.
The groups also took aim at the specific allegations made against Wells Fargo, saying they were unremarkable and insufficient to make a case under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The case against Wells Fargo alleged only that there were two investment funds cheaper than the one Wells Fargo put in its 401(k) plan, according to the Chamber. “Identifying just two cheaper funds does not state a plausible claim because there is no obligation to choose the cheapest investment options available,” the Chamber said in its brief.
SIFMA made similar arguments, pointing out that it’s “ubiquitous” within the financial industry for companies to offer affiliated funds in their workers’ 401(k) plans. There’s nothing sinister about this practice, SIFMA said—rather, it’s lawful under ERISA and it provides “meaningful benefits” to plan participants.
The district court decision in favor of Wells Fargo was written by Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Eighth Circuit affirms Doty’s decisions more than 75 percent of the time, according to data from Bloomberg Law’s Litigation Analytics.
The Chamber’s brief was filed by Alston & Bird LLP. SIFMA’s brief was filed by O’Melveny & Myers LLP.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jacklyn Wille in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jo-el J. Meyer at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the Chamber's brief is at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/John_Meiners_v_Wells_Fargo__Company_et_al_Docket_No_1702397_8th_C/1?doc_id=X1Q6NTRRUU82&fmt=pdf. Text of SIFMA's brief is at http://src.bna.com/tM4.
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 email@example.com.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)