401(k) Excessive Fee Litigation Spiked to ‘Near Record Pace’ in ’24

Encore Fiduciary reported a 35% increase in ERISA excessive fee litigation, in part driven by a surge in plan forfeiture lawsuits.

The frequency of Employee Retirement Income Security Act excessive fee class action litigation surged by 35% in 2024, with even more ERISA class action cases filed with novel theories against both defined contribution and defined benefit plans. Most of the increased volume took place in the second half of the year, as filings spiked to a near-record pace.

This deluge of case filings follows an 18-month period, starting in January 2023, with a more moderate pace of filings, as plaintiff firms worked on a backlog of cases. Many of the legacy cases have been settled, however, with three consecutive years of record settlements. Plaintiff firms have filled the void with creative new legal theories, including a wave of forfeiture claims against defined contribution plans and new wellness program, excessive fee and Affordable Care Act fraud theories against defined benefit plans and providers.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

The following is a summary of the key developments in 2024 ERISA excessive fee and class action litigation.

Frequency Up

After 18 months of a lower frequency of excessive fee case filings starting in January 2023, the number of cases filed surged in the second of 2024 by 35%. Many of the recent cases assert the novel forfeiture fiduciary-breach theory. These 28 new forfeiture cases [with 34 total filed to date] allege that plan fiduciaries breached their duty of loyalty to plan participants by applying forfeited plan assets to future contributions obligations instead of reducing participant contributions.

The following chart shows the increased pace of filings in the second half of 2024. The pace has spiked close to a record pace, as plaintiff firms chase the new forfeiture fiduciary-breach theory of liability.

A key change in 2024 is the increase in filings against defined benefit plans, with the same spike in frequency in the second half of the year. The following chart demonstrates the increase in total class action case filings, including complaints related to pension risk transfers (12 cases against nine plan sponsors), actuarial equivalence (three cases), employee stock ownership programs (five cases) and wellness programs [21 cases].

2024 Lawsuit Trends

The driving factor behind the increase in case filings is the expanded number of law firms, including excessive fee legacy law firms like Capozzi Adler P.C. and Walcheske Luzi LLC, filing forfeiture claims. After the six initial forfeiture cases filed in late 2023 were not dismissed with prejudice (five of the six were filed in California), 28 additional forfeiture lawsuits were filed in 2024. The vast majority—21 cases—were filed in the second half of the year.

For the first time, a significant number of the backlog in prior cases has been settled. The 153 total pending cases (out of 526 cases filed from 2016 through 2024) is the lowest number of pending cases in three years. For example, 90 percent of the record number of cases filed in 2020 have now been settled. This appears to be a factor in freeing up legacy law firms to pursue new cases.

The following chart shows the number of cases filed by plaintiff firms in the last three years. It shows the prolific Capozzi Adler (12 cases) and Walcheske (11 cases) firms continue to drive the higher volume of case filings and how many more new law firms are entering the space.

Plaintiff Law Firm Excess Fee Filings from 2022 to 2024

2022 Filings 

2023 Filings 

2024 Filings 

Plaintiff Law Firm 

2022 Cases Filed 

Plaintiff Law Firm 

2023 Cases Filed

Plaintiff Law Firm 

2024 Cases Filed 

 

Capozzi Adler 

21

Wenzel Fenton Cabassa 

10

Wenzel Fenton Cabassa 

4

Miller Shah 

15

Christina Humphrey Law 

4

Capozzi Adler 

12

Walcheske & Luzi

13

Walcheske & Luzi 

8

Walcheske & Luzi

11

Wenzel Fenton Cabassa 

11

Morgan & Morgan (in conjunction with Wenzel Fenton Cabassa) 

7

Morgan & Morgan 

1

Nichols Kaster 

8

Nichols Kaster 

2

Miller Shah 

2

Tower Legal 

4

Tower Legal Group 

2

Haffner Law  

4

Schlichter Bogard & Denton 

3

Capozzi Adler 

6

Edelson Lechtzin 

2

Fair Work 

2

Hayes Pawlenko 

5

Hayes Pawlenko

5

Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta 

2

Bailey & Glasser 

2

Engstrom Lee 

3

Roberts Law 

1

Cohen Milstein 

1

Wade Kilpela Slade 

3

Sanford Heisler Sharp

1

Sanford Heisler 

1

Pomerantz

2

Other firms 

7

Izard Kindall & Raabe 

1

Schlichter Bogard 

1

 

 

Foulston Siefkin 

2

Chirinos Law Firm 

2

 

 

Edelson Lechtzin 

1

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll 

1

 

 

McKay Law 

1

Wanta Thome 

1

 

 

Ducello Levitt [but note the complaint follows the Walcheske template] 

1

Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman 

2

 

 

Hacker Stephens 

1

The Sharman Law Firm 

2

 

 

Sharp Law

1

Fair Work 

1

 

 

Pomerantz

1

Foulston Siefkin & Figari + Davenport

1

 

 

Scott & Scott 

1

Izard, Kindall & Raabe 

1

 

 

 

 

Johnson Smith Hibbard and Wildman 

1

 

 

 

 

Oliver Law Group 

1

 

 

 

 

Terrell Marshall Law Group

1

 

 

 

 

Barton & Downes 

1

 

Smaller plans were targeted in 2024. Whereas the majority of excessive fee cases in 2023 were filed against jumbo plans with at least $1 billion in asset size, many more smaller plans were sued in 2023, including 13 plans with less than $500 million in assets, nine of which have less than $250 million in assets. 

2024 saw a substantial increase in fiduciary breach class actions lawsuits against defined benefit plans, with 12 challenges to pension risk transfers (against nine companies); more fiduciary-breach cases against health plans, with 21 tobacco or vaccine wellness cases; and the first two purported excessive fee lawsuits against health plans (Johnson & Johnson and Wells Fargo). In the last week of December, two class action complaints were filed directly against medical service providers alleging fraud schemes under the Affordable Care Act. This reflects the increased attention to health plans for new fiduciary-breach theories in class action filings.

Considered more holistically, class action fiduciary-breach lawsuits continue to evolve to challenges or objections to plan design, escalating from what had become routine challenges to plan fees and investments. Instead of claims that fiduciaries failed to prudently follow the terms of plan documents, the lawsuits seek to change the design of plan documents. These claims are essentially challenging how plan benefits are designed by plan sponsors, decisions that in the past were considered settlor functions immune from fiduciary responsibilities.

For example, the forfeiture claims are attempts to change plan design—or least limit fiduciary discretion under plan terms—so that forfeited contributions are applied to reduce participant expenses and not future employer contributions. The pension risk transfer claims are attempts to stop plan sponsors from transferring retirement plans to annuities. The actuarial equivalence cases are attempts to change the mortality tables that sponsors use in their plans to calculate alternative annuities choices.

In sum, as plaintiff firms get more creative, we are seeing more challenges to benefit design.

Settlements Hit Another Record

There were a record 53 settlements in 2024, up from 42 in 2023 and 31 in 2022. The total amount of settlements in 2024 for reported cases was $203.3 million. This trails the record $352.8 million in settlements in 2023, but without the outlier $124.6 million settlement in the Ruane, Cuniff & Goldfarb Inc. case [involving a significant percentage of plan assets invested in one volatile biotech stock], the aggregate settlement amount was close to the 2023 total.

The average settlement, however, continued to decline for the third year in a row. The average settlement in 2024 was $4.6 million ($3.2 million without the outlier UnitedHealth settlement of $69 million, a case that involved unique conflicts of interest evidence). Removing the aforementioned outliers from each year, 2024’s average settlement of $3.2 million is far less than the 2023 average of $5.7 million.

We believe this reflects the continuing trend that certain plaintiff law firms are willing to accept early cost-of defense settlements before the expense of full-blown discovery. The record number of 27 settlements at $2 million or less reflects this trend of earlier and lower settlements.

Daniel Aronowitz is the president of Encore Fiduciary, and Karolina Jozwiak is a legal research analyst at Encore Fiduciary.

Court Rules American Airlines Breached Fiduciary Duty in ESG Case

A federal district court in Texas found that American Airlines prioritized ESG investment goals ahead of employees’ financial interests, violating its fiduciary duties under ERISA.

A Texas federal court ruled that American Airlines Inc. and its employee benefits committee violated their fiduciary duty of loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by prioritizing environmental, social and governance investment goals ahead of the financial interests of their employees’ retirement plans.

The Plaintiffs “proved by a preponderance of the evidence that American disloyally acted with an intent to benefit a party other than Plan participants and in a manner that was not wholly focused on the best financial benefit to the Plan,” U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor wrote in a finding filed on Friday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

The decision stems from a class action lawsuit filed by former pilot Bryan Spence on behalf of American Airlines employees in June 2023. In Spence v. American Airlines Inc., et al., Spence accused the airline and its benefits committee of mismanaging 401(k) funds by allowing investment managers, specifically BlackRock Institutional Trust Co. to pursue ESG-focused agendas through proxy voting and shareholder activism.

According to the lawsuit, BlackRock’s strategies covertly shifted core index portfolios within the retirement plan toward ESG funds, potentially jeopardizing financial returns for sociopolitical objectives. American Airlines sought to have the case dismissed, arguing in part that the investments in question were not in the 401(k) plan’s core fund lineup. 

“American has never offered ESG investment options in our 401(k) plan. In fact, the committee that considers investments for our plan has expressly rejected ESG investments,” said a spokesperson for American Airlines. “BlackRock’s role in the plan is limited to passive index fund management, and the ruling focuses on American’s oversight of BlackRock’s proxy voting, which aligns with industry best practices. We remain committed to responsibly managing our team members’ retirement savings with appropriate oversight.”

The court’s four-day bench trial involved testimony from multiple witnesses and a review of evidence.

O’Connor determined that American Airlines and its employee benefits committee breached their duty of loyalty, which requires fiduciaries to act solely in the best financial interests of retirement plan participants. The court found that the defendants allowed corporate interests and BlackRock’s ESG agenda to influence the plan’s management, failing to prioritize employees’ financial well-being.

“The facts here compellingly established fiduciary misconduct in the form of conflicts of interest and the failure to loyally act solely in the Plan’s best financial interests,” O’Connor wrote. “BlackRock’s ESG influence is evident throughout administration of the Plan. The belief that ESG considerations confer a license to ignore pecuniary benefits is mistaken. ERISA does not permit a fiduciary to pursue a non-pecuniary interest no matter how noble it might view the aim.”

However, O’Connor ruled against Spence’s claim that American Airlines and its benefits committee breached their duty of prudence. While the defendants followed prevailing industry practices, the court acknowledged that those practices might have been influenced by broader trends within the fiduciary industry. Nonetheless, adherence to these standards shielded the defendants from liability for imprudence.

As a result, O’Connor concluded that the defendants violated only their fiduciary duty of loyalty. The ruling underscores the ongoing tension between ESG investment strategies and the legal obligations of fiduciaries managing retirement plans.

«