Bechtel Faces 401(k) Suit Over Default Managed Accounts

The global engineering firm’s $5.1 billion retirement plan committee is sued for defaulting participants into managed accounts plaintiff alleges did not merit the fees.

Engineering and construction firm Bechtel, its board and its trust and thrift plan committee have been sued for allegedly defaulting plan participants into managed accounts that was not justified for the fees.

Plaintiff Debra Hanigan, a current participant in the plan, filed the suit Friday seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. The suit, Hanigan v. Bechtel Global, is being led by law firm Fitzgerald Hanna & Sullivan PLLC along with Walcheske & Luzi LLC; the plaintiffs are seeking payment including “all profits which participants would have made if the defendants had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations.”

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

The allegations are of note as managed account use in retirement plans is seeing growth as plan sponsors seek to offer more personalized investing and advice in workplace plans. Proponents have made the case that managed accounts provide relatively low-cost access to personalized investing and advice access, though they are more often offered as an option and not a qualified default investment alternative for participants, according to data from Cerulli Associates.

The plaintiff argued, however, that without participant engagement the managed accounts did not produce results worth the additional fees, particularly when target date funds could have provided similar results at a lower cost.

“Without additional personalization of information from Plan participants, managed accounts are essentially expensive target-date funds, focused on the single demographic factor of age,” the plaintiff alleged. “Prudent fiduciaries would not automatically enroll plan participants, who tend to be disengaged and do not provide additional personalized information to the recordkeeper, in an expensive MA program when much less expensive target-date funds for that purpose are readily available.”

The suit also argued that setting up the managed accounts as a QDIA “significantly and imprudently” increased the administrative fees paid to the recordkeeper from participants when compared to defaulting them into TDFs.

The managed accounts were run by Edelman Financial Engines as provided by recordkeeper Empower, according to the lawsuit. Neither was named as a defendant in the suit, nor did they immediately respond to requests for comment. Brechtel also did not respond to a request for a response.

Bechtel’s plan had $5.1 billion in assets as of 2022 as held by 15,508 participants, according to the lawsuit. Participants allegedly paid an average annual rate of $320 for recordkeeping, administrative and managed account fees, according to the suit. Without the managed account, fees would have been between $24 and $29, allegedly.

The plaintiff claimed that the “vast majority” of plan participants were defaulted into the managed account program during the class period without being asked for personal information to further customize the offering to their needs, and thus, “were enrolled in essentially very expensive and imprudent TDFs.”

“Plaintiff did not receive any in-person financial planning advice as part of her enrollment in the Empower managed account program during the Class Period,” according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiff also alleged that recordkeepers are “economically incentivized” to use managed accounts as they can charge higher fees, with Empower and Edelman Financial Engines allegedly earning “tens of millions of dollars” as participants lost “tens of millions of dollars.”

Proponents of managed accounts, including providers, have argued that the service can both improve investment outcomes as well as provide holistic financial guidance to participants who otherwise would not be able to afford a financial adviser.

In addition to recordkeepers, many plan sponsors and advisers are seeing value in managed accounts, with 52% of consultant-intermediated plans offering managed accounts, according to a recent white paper from Cerulli Associates. Among those, 5% use it as a dynamic QDIA, in which participants are defaulted into the service when they hit a certain age; 3% use it as the plan QDIA.

In 2020, Shell Oil Company was sued for allegedly allowing participants to be charged excessive fees in part for use of managed accounts provided by Fidelity Investments. Fidelity was not named as a defendant in the case, which this November was suggested for trial by a federal judge, according to court records.

Chamber of Commerce, ERIC Plead for Fewer Retirement Plan Disclosures

The interest groups agree that most participants do not read nor understand many disclosures related to their retirement benefits.

Industry groups have asked the Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to simplify and improve retirement plan disclosures with specific recommendations in response to a request for information issued by the DOL in January.

Section 319 of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 requires the three agencies to issue a report by December 29, 2025, that makes recommendations to Congress on how retirement plan disclosures can be consolidated, simplified, standardized and improved. The report should have an eye both to participant ease of use as well as plan sponsor compliance burden, according to the legislation.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Participant Understanding and Accessibility

The letter written by the  explained that participant understanding and retention of important plan information is often sorely lacking, and cited fees as an example. “41 percent of participants incorrectly believe that they do not pay any 401(k) plan fees,” the chamber wrote.

It also recommended that the agencies require the most essential disclosures at the time of eligibility, which include how to enroll, how to contribute, what a match is and how to get it, non-elective contributions, how to invest and change investments and how to designate a beneficiary. The chamber recommended giving this actionable and relevant information first in order to avoid overwhelming participants with other disclosures that land all at once.

For defined benefit plans, the most important information for early disclosure would be when coverage begins, if there is an employee contribution, the vesting schedule and the benefit formula, according to the chamber.

Other information is important for participants, it wrote, but “providing it to an individual when they first become eligible may overshadow the information that is needed to enroll.”

A separate letter sent by the ERISA Industry Committee agrees that “participants tend to ignore many notices and disclosures due to the frequency and volume.”

If disclosures were streamlined and tied to specific action events, there is a greater chance that participants will read and engage with them, the organizations argued.

Plan Sponsor Compliance Burden

The chamber notes in its letter that, since employers are not required to offer retirement plans, it is important that “employers be able to administer plans with reasonable expense so that they are not discouraged from establishing or continuing such plans.”

Both the chamber and ERIC recommend that the agencies improve access to electronic delivery for disclosures and eliminate disclosures that contain information that a participant cannot act on. For example, summary annual reports for DC and DB plans and annual funding notices for DB plans could be removed, according to the groups, because nothing contained in them is likely to influence their retirement decisions.

In addition, other disclosures that could be cut are “the Notice of Transfer of Excess Pension Assets to Retiree Health Benefit Account and the Notice of Failure to Meet Minimum Funding Standards,” the chamber argued.

When it comes to electronic delivery versus mailed disclosures, ERIC recommended that the IRS and DOL create a single standard for electronic delivery and permit an opt-out system wherever possible.

The agencies should also never make electronic delivery more burdensome than paper for sponsors, such as by requiring engagement trackers on electronic disclosures, since paper disclosures “may be less accessible, more likely to be immediately physically discarded, and potentially less physically secure.”

Lastly, both organizations recommended that the agencies be flexible with foreign language disclosure requirements. The chamber wrote that “given the expense of providing information in multiple languages, it makes more sense to base a foreign language requirement on the plan’s actual demographics.” It argued that plans should be free to tailor their assistance to the demographics of their participants and to make it known that such assistance exists in a foreign language within an English disclosure.

This request is in response to the DOL’s auto-portability proposal, also from January, which would require sponsors to provide portability notices and call centers if a participant lives in a county where 10% of the population speaks the same non-English language. This provision was criticized at the time by the chamber and others as being excessively burdensome.

«

You have reached your limit of two free articles