DOL Complaint Alleges Fiduciary Failures by Adviser

A complaint filed in a Pennsylvania district court by the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration alleges a list of ERISA infractions related to fees, documents, disclosures and processes by a 3(21) fiduciary firm.

An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) suggests a Pennsylvania-based advisory and benefits consultant, Belanger and Co. Inc., violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by improperly transferring plan assets and failing to fully disclose fees, among other allegations.

Belanger and Co. describes itself as is “a fee-only, independent, qualified retirement plan administrator and consultant for small to medium sized companies.” According to EBSA, the firm on a variety of occasions “failed to timely remit assets to certain plans, fully and timely terminate some plans and process some plan distributions, destroying documents, and making errors in the administration of some plans.”

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

The complaint seeks restoration of all plan losses, lost earnings, and disgorgement to the plans of “all unjust enrichment received by the defendants, and removal of the defendants as fiduciaries and service providers to any ERISA-covered employee benefit plan that they serve as fiduciaries and service providers.” Additionally, it seeks an injunction permanently preventing the defendants from exercising custody, control, or decisionmaking authority with respect to the assets of any employee benefit plan covered by ERISA, preventing the defendants from acting directly or indirectly as a service provider for any employee benefit plan subject to ERISA. It also seeks to bar the defendants from engaging in any future violations of ERISA.

EBSA filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In the text of the complaint, EBSA investigators note the firm serves as an “administrator of employee benefit plans within the meaning of Sections 3(3) and (16) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(3), (16),” working with plans in this capacity throughout Montgomery, Pennsylvania. A number of small businesses are called out by name in the complaint as having been mistreated, ranging from manufacturers to ambulatory care centers and a yoga studio.

NEXT: EBSA allegations 

According to the text of the compliant, Belanger carried sufficient discretion over clients’ plan assets to serve as a 3(21) fiduciary “and a party-in-interest as that term is defined in Sections 3(14) (A) and (C) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(14) (A) and (C).”

“During the relevant period, the defendants had the ability to withdraw plan assets from each plan’s custodial account,” EBSA explains. “This included the ability to transfer plan assets to the company. The defendants were able to make these transfers without notifying the plans’ sponsors.”

Using this authority, EBSA says the defendants enacted a variety of ERISA violations against a significant number of clients. For example, when one client decided to move to a different adviser following an audit, Belanger “did not transfer all of the plan assets to the new service provider. Instead, approximately $30,000 was left in the plan’s account. [The plan sponsor] was not notified of this action.”

In another case, EBSA says Belanger was called on to terminate a plan in 2005. “However, as of November 1, 2010, assets remained in the plan’s account. In November 2010, all of the assets remaining in the plan’s account were transferred to the [Belanger] company’s account with the plan’s asset custodian and then transferred to the company’s corporate bank account.”

In other examples called out by EBSA, Belanger is accused of willingly destroying documents and obscuring fees or assets rightfully owed back to clients. As such, alongside damages for plaintiffs, EBSA is seeking an order permanently enjoining the defendants from acting, directly or indirectly, as a service provider for any employee benefit plan subject to ERISA.

Kenneth Belanger, president of Belanger and Co., Inc., tells PLANADVISER the firm has “cooperated fully in this investigation by the DOL and we are determined to rectify any errors which occurred as a result of inadequate training and/or supervision.”  

The full complaint is available online here

Lawsuit Accuses Morgan Stanley of Self-Dealing in 401(k)

The lawsuit also says there were investment options other than proprietary options that underperformed and charged excessive fees.

A participant in Morgan Stanley’s 401(k) plan has filed a lawsuit on behalf of approximately 60,000 current and former plan participants alleging the plan included investment options with excessive fees and used Morgan Stanley proprietary funds rather than other funds that would be better and cheaper for participants.

Morgan Stanley tells PLANADVISER it does not have a comment at this time.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

According to the complaint, Morgan Stanley failed to honor its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by not using its sophistication and the plan’s bargaining power to select lower-cost, better-performing investment options for participants. Instead, the complaint says,  the firm selected and retained relatively high-cost and poor-performing investment options, some of which were managed for profit by Morgan Stanley. “By acting to benefit themselves and contrary to their fiduciary duty, Morgan Stanley caused the plan, and hence participants, to suffer staggering losses of hundreds of millions of dollars,” the complaint states. 

The lawsuit accuses Morgan Stanley of loading the plan with mutual funds managed by Morgan Stanley, without thoroughly investigating whether plan participants would be better served by investments managed by unaffiliated companies. For example, it says, the investment performance of the Morgan Stanley Institutional Mid Cap Growth Fund IS Class performed worse than 88% and 87% of mid cap growth mutual funds for the past three years and five years, respectively. Similarly, the Morgan Stanley Institutional Small Cap Growth Fund IS Class performed worse than 99% of funds in 2014 and 94% in 2015 for small cap growth funds. 

The complaint alleges that the fees Morgan Stanley charged its mutual funds in the plan were higher than the fees it charged its outside clients with like assets and similar investment strategies. 

According to the lawsuit, Morgan Stanley also failed to select investment options and monitor their investment performance with the skill, care and prudence required by ERISA. It says Morgan Stanley offered a variety of target-date portfolios, but calls out the portfolios managed by BlackRock.  “Morgan Stanley continued to retain these portfolios despite the fact that BlackRock Institutional Trust Co. NA, was being sanctioned at the time by both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for violations of federal laws and regulations. The BlackRock Target Date Funds underperformed relative to their respective investment benchmarks and the Vanguard target date funds with comparable investment strategies,” he complaint states. 

The lawsuit says there were also a number of other investment options that underperformed relative to their benchmarks and other available options with comparable investment strategies.

«