Multi-Employer Plan Sponsor Settles 401(k) Fee Suit

HB
Hall Benefits Law

Contributor

Strategically designed, legally compliant benefit plans are the cornerstone of long-term business stability and growth. As such, HBL provides comprehensive legal guidance on benefits in M&A, ESOPs, executive compensation, health and welfare benefits, retirement plans, and ERISA litigation matters. Responsive, relationship-driven counsel is the calling card of the Firm.
Former plan participants in the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association (CURPA) multi-employer 401(k) plan have reached a deal to settle an ERISA suit over excessive fees.
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Former plan participants in the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association (CURPA) multi-employer 401(k) plan have reached a deal to settle an ERISA suit over excessive fees. The case is Lucero, Brenda et al. v. Credit Union Retirement Plan Association et al., case number 3:22-cv-00208, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

CURPA, a Wisconsin-based professional employer organization, provides services to credit unions, such as payroll, employee benefits, and other employee management tasks. One of those benefits is a multi-employer 401(k) plan with more than 20,000 participants with account balances at the end of 2020, as per the U.S. Department of Labor.

The federal district court judge has given the parties until August 2, 2024, to file a motion for preliminary settlement approval. He asked them to explain why he should approve a classwide settlement. Although class treatment is typically appropriate in ERISA excessive fee suits, the judge declined to certify a class in January because three of the four named plaintiffs were charged fees that the proposed class admitted were reasonable. Instead of the plan charging a set fee for all plan participants, each employer negotiated a separate fee with the plan.

The plan participants argued that the fee differences, which ranged from $10.01 to $471.53, should not matter because they sought relief not individually but as a whole plan. However, the judge rejected this argument based on Seventh Circuit precedent, in that a class may not consist of both harmed and unharmed individuals.

Nonetheless, the judge denied CURPA's motion to dismiss the suit in March 2023. He ruled that the plaintiffs had produced enough evidence to support their claim.

The four named plaintiffs filed suit against CURPA in April 2022. They alleged that CURPA acted imprudently, violating ERISA, by failing to properly oversee and control costs, fees, and investment options.

HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More