ARTICLE
2 January 2019

Novel Suit By Kentucky Pension Beneficiaries Continues

JD
Jones Day

Contributor

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
A Kentucky court decided in favor of the beneficiaries of Kentucky's Public Retirement System by striking down a motion to dismiss their suit ...
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

A Kentucky court decided in favor of the beneficiaries of Kentucky's Public Retirement System by striking down a motion to dismiss their suit, which alleges that administrators and their advisors breached their fiduciary responsibilities.

In December 2017, Kentucky public pension system ("KRS") beneficiaries sued various KRS trustees, officers,  advisers and investment managers in state court; Mayberry, et al. v. KKR & Co., L.P., et al., No. 17-CI-1348 ("Mayberry"). Recently, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, rejecting arguments that plaintiffs lacked standing. We have  previously discussed the heightened scrutiny of active management of public pension assets in our Alert "PA Commission Scrutinizes Active Management of Public Pension Assets."

Mayberry is a novel case where plan beneficiaries directly sued to hold public pension officials, as well as their advisors and investment managers, responsible for KRS's liabilities. Plaintiffs—members of KRS—have asserted various claims, including breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting those breaches, joint enterprise and civil conspiracy.

Defendants moved to dismiss, challenging plaintiffs' standing to sue derivatively on behalf of KRS or as taxpayers, among other arguments. Notably, both KRS and Kentucky's Attorney General declined the opportunity to pursue the claims now being brought by plaintiffs. The court, however, found plaintiffs had standing both "derivatively as members and beneficiaries of KRS" and as taxpayers. As against the third-party advisors, the Court held the "complaint . . . alleges facts sufficient to imply a common law fiduciary relationship between the [advisors] and KRS's members," specifically noting allegations of "superior skill, experience and expertise . . . ."

With one exception, the court ruled that all claims may proceed against all defendants.

We will continue to monitor future developments.

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