This Month Only! >> $20 off and a FREE SHRM tote with your membership and code TOTE2018!
Sign up for free email newsletters and get more SHRM content delivered to your inbox.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Common fiduciary practices may prove costly.
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
Fiduciaries must adhere to the "ERISA prudent man rule." This means they must perform their duties with, as the act puts it, the "care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims."
These phrases, which derive from ERISA and case law, are seemingly simple but not terribly helpful in determining what a fiduciary should and should not do. As the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Donovan v. Cunningham (716 F.2d 1455 (5th Cir. 1983)), it is not enough for ERISA fiduciaries to act with "a pure heart and an empty head." Given the number of recent challenges by 401(k) plan participants—contesting either the reasonableness of fees charged in connection with investment options offered under the plans or the adequacy of the investment options—today's fiduciaries need to know what is required of them and act in accordance.
A district court decision in March, ABB Inc. v. Tussey (No. 2:06-CV-04305 (W.D. Mo. 2012)), which held a company's 401(k) plan fiduciaries liable for $35 million in damages, is a useful guide to the key responsibilities of an ERISA fiduciary, as some of the Tussey fiduciaries' practices are commonplace.
Fundamentals for Fiduciaries
When a 401(k) plan permits participants and beneficiaries to direct the investment of money in their individual accounts, the fundamental duties of the plan's investment fiduciaries include the following:
In fulfilling these obligations, the act's prudence standard is that of a "prudent fiduciary with experience dealing with a similar enterprise." This is often characterized as the standard of a knowledgeable investor.
A Case Study
In Tussey, ABB Inc. sponsored two 401(k) plans for its employees, with combined assets exceeding $1 billion.
ABB's Pension Review Committee was the named fiduciary and was responsible for selecting and monitoring the plans' investment options. The options included mutual funds offered by Fidelity Investments; Fidelity Research was an investment advisor to the mutual funds, and Fidelity Trust was the record keeper for the plans. Collectively, the three entities were referred to as "Fidelity." Fidelity was paid through revenue sharing derived from the plans' assets as well as per-participant fees.
Sounds like a typical 401(k) plan and fiduciary setup, right? So where did the plan fiduciaries go wrong?
Failure to monitor, benchmark or determine the reasonableness of record-keeping costs.
Failure to follow the terms of plan documents.
Second, the investment policy statement required that a "winnowing process" be used when removing and replacing an option in the plans' menu of investment options. A winnowing process involves monitoring investment funds' performance, putting poor performers on a "watch list" and removing poor performers from the investment lineup if their performance does not improve. The court found that the fiduciaries did not conduct a full and proper investigation, including a winnowing process, before replacing one option, the Vanguard Wellington Fund, with the Fidelity Freedom Funds. The court found that if the fiduciaries had reviewed the Vanguard Wellington Fund's performance during the period prior to de-selection, they would have learned that except for one year, the Vanguard Wellington Fund had been a "stellar" and "consistent" performer. The court, believing that the replacement was motivated by a desire to reduce company fees rather than fees related to the 401(k) plans, also took issue with the fact that the substitution occurred despite minimal research and review of the Fidelity Freedom Funds.
Third, the plans required that, when selecting a mutual fund that offered a choice of share classes, the plan fiduciaries were to select the share class with the lowest cost. The court concluded that the plan fiduciaries violated this obligation because they did not do this in some instances.
Plan fiduciaries who do not have any of the above language in their investment policy statement or plan documents should not necessarily breathe a sigh of relief. Plan participants and beneficiaries can claim—and have claimed—that a fiduciary is required, as a matter of prudence, to take an active role in evaluations of plan investments. This analysis must take into account more than generic information about mutual funds and must look specifically at what makes sense for the particular 401(k) plan, given the plan's size, population and current investment option lineup.
Improper use of the plans' revenue sharing to pay for or subsidize certain corporate services.
The Tussey case has generated consternation within the employee benefits community because many of the practices undertaken by the plan fiduciaries are commonplace. Plan fiduciaries should consider taking the following steps to help avoid the type of liability found in this case:
Read and follow governing documents
Learn about the plan's retained service providers.
Monitor service providers and fees.
Follow the governing procedure.
What procedures should employers follow with respect to plan investments?
Establish a fiduciary committee that meets to specifically discuss plan investments.
Populate the committee with at least one or two individuals who are knowledgeable about plan investments, such as a member of a treasury function or an outside registered investment advisor.
Prepare an investment policy statement that can provide guidance to plan fiduciaries with respect to their responsibilities. Keep in mind, however, that a statement can do more harm than good if it is ignored.
Meet quarterly to evaluate all plan investments.
Review and deliberate a decision before adoption. This involves investigating an investment option's prior performance, current managers and investment strategy before adding it to, or removing it from, the plan's investment lineup.
Adopt a change by taking appropriate steps—generally, a fiduciary vote and plan amendment, where applicable.
Memorialize the committee's decision-making, including the reasons for keeping or dropping an investment, not just the final result. For example, a committee's meeting minutes should document why a fund was removed and replaced. ERISA fiduciaries should always assume that their procedures and decisions will be scrutinized by a court and that their counsel will need to rely on documentation to defend their actions.
Remember that ERISA plans are separate and distinct legal entities from each other and their sponsoring companies.
Follow the golden rule.
The purpose of this discussion is not to scare 401(k) plan fiduciaries but rather to remind them of the importance of process, prudence and following plan documents when performing fiduciary duties. Keep in mind that Tussey is just one case and that the district court's decision in Tussey will not likely be the last word, as the Tussey fiduciaries have appealed the district court's findings to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The authors are attorneys in Littler Mendelson's New York office. Steven Friedman chairs the firm's Employee Benefits Practice Group.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 10,000 companies