American United Life Insurance Company (AUL), a OneAmerica company, hired Chris Blair to be regional sales director for retirement
services for Northern California and the Pacific Northwest.
Blair will lead
sales, marketing and service functions throughout
Northern California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. He will be based in AUL’s San Francisco office.
Most recently, Blair led
Principal Retirement & Investment Services’ retirement sales
practice, responsible for business development in Northern
California. He also served as Principal’s national director of consultant relations. Before his time at Principal, he
led retirement plan sales for Union Bank of California, and held sales
management positions with Charles Schwab and New York Life.
Blair has a Bachelor of Science degree in business
administration from the University of New Hampshire and a Master of
Business Administration from Clark University.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has dismissed
a suit alleging John Hancock charged 401(k) plans excessive fees for
investment services.
U.S. District Judge William J. Martini agreed with John
Hancock’s argument that plaintiffs’ Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) claims are derivative, meaning they belong to the plans, so
the plaintiffs must first make demand upon the trustees of the plan to
file suit. The court found no such demand was made, nor are the trustees
listed as defendants in the action.
Martini pointed out that the 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals has held that in relation to an ERISA § 502(g) claim,
which is akin to the Section 502(a) claims in the current suit, “[a]
participant in a fund governed by ERISA can sue derivatively on behalf
of the fund only if the plaintiff first establishes that the trustees
breached their fiduciary duty.” According to Martini, this
would seem to preclude suit here – because plaintiffs’ complaint makes
no allegations against the plans’ trustees.
Also, the appellate court was applying the
rule mandating demand on the trustees, except when such demand is
futile, Martini said, adding that plaintiffs made no allegations against the
trustees or that demand is otherwise futile.
John Hancock Life Insurance
Company operates 401(k) plans through group annuity contracts (GACs),
which it establishes by selecting a menu of investment options or funds, the opinion said.
John Hancock provides the menu of options to the employer who then
selects a subset of the funds. Participants in a portfolio offered by
John Hancock direct their monies into their own separate sub-accounts,
where they are allocated into particular funds within the portfolio.
John Hancock charges plan sponsors a contract level fee
and charges plan participants fees for their investment in the
sub-accounts.
A participant invested in two John Hancock subaccounts
within her employer-sponsored 401(k) plan alleged that John Hancock’s
sales and service is excessive and in violation of ERISA; that the firm
allowed payment of 12b-1 fees in violation of ERISA; that John Hancock
allowed its investment management division to charge plan participants
an advisory fee in violation of ERISA; and that the firm wrongfully
received revenue sharing payments from participants’ investments into
sub-accounts in violation of ERISA.