Court Tosses Company Stock Imprudence Claim

A federal judge in Georgia has thrown out claims by 401(k) participants that Beazer Homes USA breached its fiduciary duties by offering company stock as an investment option when it was no longer prudent.

U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia explained he was dismissing the imprudence allegation because it was, in reality, a charge that the plan should have been better diversified. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not include that diversification requirement, Story asserted as he granted Beazer’s request to throw out that count in the suit.

Story wrote in his opinion that the notion of the prudence presumption runs up against the specific language of ERISA and that three other Georgia federal judges had likewise rebuffed prudence presumption in other cases.

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

Even as he dismissed the prudence count of the participant lawsuit, Story gave the plaintiffs permission to move forward with other claims that Beazer also committed an ERISA fiduciary breach by not completely informing employees about its true financial condition including the effects of its subprime mortgage exposure. The court said several other federal judges have recognized that a fiduciary has a duty to disclose to other fiduciaries material information that is necessary to protect the plan.

The class action complaint alleged that Beazer and its top executives breached their ERISA fiduciary duties by maintaining the plan’s “large investment” in the company’s stock from July 28, 2005, to May 12, 2008. The employees claimed that during this time, the stock was an imprudent investment because of the increased foreclosure rate on homes with subprime mortgages.

The case is In re Beazer Homes USA Inc. ERISA Litigation, N.D. Ga., No. 1:07-CV-0952-RWS.

Court Clears Path for Stock-Drop Class Action

A former Comcast Corp. employee is qualified to serve as a class representative in a stock-drop lawsuit against Comcast Corp., a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled as he certified the participant case as a class action.

U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected the company’s argument that plaintiff Janell T. Moore should not be allowed to pursue her stock-drop claims because she had not suffered a monetary loss from what she argued was Comcast’s artificially inflated stock.  Rather, Battle said Moore had come forward with enough evidence that her individual plan had been diminished.

The court also found that the release of legal claims against the company Moore signed when she left Comcast would not preclude her from serving as a class representative. The court said the document would not prevent her from recovering losses that occurred after she signed it.

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

Finally, Comcast asserted that any losses Moore sustained in her company stock investments through the Comcast 401(k) should be offset by a profit she made when she exercised her stock options. Battle rejected the claim, saying the stock options and the 401(k) were separate matters.

Moore argued in her lawsuit that Comcast and its top executives breached their Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties by continuing to offer company stock in its retirement plan even when it was no longer prudent. Moore alleged that the ERISA breaches occurred between February 1, 2007 and December 5, 2007. 

The case is Moore v. Comcast Corp., E.D. Pa., No. 08-773.

«

 

You’re viewing the third of three free articles.

  This is your final free article. 

Subscribe to a free PW newsletter - get free online access!

 Don’t leave before subscribing! 

If you’re a subscriber, please login.