Princeton ERISA Settlement Features $5.8M Price Tag

In addition to the payment into a settlement fund, Princeton has agreed to what the settlement agreement calls “therapeutic relief,” including a pledge to not raise fees. 

Details of a settlement of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit against Princeton University that was previously announced have been posted.

The university has agreed to pay $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit alleging excessive fees for recordkeeping and investments.

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

The initial lawsuit charged the university with failing to leverage its retirement plans’ collective and massive bargaining power to benefit participants and beneficiaries. Defendants were also accused of inappropriately contracting with two recordkeepers instead of one and with failing to investigate, examine and understand the real cost to participants for administrative services, thereby causing the plans to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for recordkeeping and investments.

In addition to the payment into a settlement fund, Princeton has agreed to what the settlement agreement calls “therapeutic relief.” It will not increase the plans’ recordkeeping fees for three years and will use commercially reasonable best efforts to continue to attempt to reduce recordkeeping fees. Princeton has also agreed to conduct a request for proposals (RFP) process for recordkeeping-administrative services and outside independent investment consulting services within three years after the settlement approval. The settlement agreement notes that it is possible that Princeton will retain the plans’ current recordkeepers or investment consultant based on the RFP.

The agreement also includes processes for the plans’ benefits and investment committees. By the date of the settlement approval, the committees will amend their respective charters and/or operating documents, to the extent necessary, to adopt and follow best practices for 403(b) plans as described by the plans’ current independent investment consultant. For a period of five years following the settlement approval, the investment committee will meet not less than four times per year with the plans’ current independent investment consultant, or another independent investment consultant selected after an RFP, to evaluate the expense and performance of each investment option in the plans, to review and consider changes to the investment option lineup, to review administrative and recordkeeping costs of the plans, and to investigate and pursue further strategies to reduce plan costs.

In addition, for a period of five years following the settlement approval, the benefits committee will meet with the investment committee and the independent investment consultant once a year to evaluate the expense and performance of each investment option in the plans, to review and consider changes to the investment option lineup, to review administrative and recordkeeping costs of the plans, and to investigate and pursue further strategies to reduce plan costs.

The lawsuit included allegations relating to participant loans. For loans administered by TIAA, it alleged that a portion of participants’ plan accounts were transferred to a TIAA annuity product as collateral securing the loan they actually took from TIAA’s general account. According to the lawsuit, TIAA retained for itself the difference, or “spread,” between the loan interest rate paid by participants and the interest rate the transferred amount received as investment income from the annuity product. The settlement agreement states that, by this month, Princeton will have reviewed the TIAA collateralized loan program with, but not limited to, its independent investment consultant and plans’ counsel. Princeton agrees to terminate and replace that loan program by March 2021, if not sooner, if it is found that it should be replaced based on the review or if TIAA ceases to offer it.

In other “therapeutic relief,” Princeton’s current independent investment consultant, or another independent investment consultant selected after an RFP, will continue to evaluate the CREF Stock Account and the TIAA Real Estate Account to determine whether they continue to be appropriate investment options in the plans. Princeton will correct the plans’ disclosures to participants and beneficiaries to identify the CREF Stock Account as an investment that invests in U.S. and non-U.S. equities following the settlement approval.

The the settlement agreement notes that, effective October 1, Princeton negotiated a significant reduction in the plans’ recordkeeping fees with TIAA, reducing annual fees from 6 basis points (bps) to 2.9 bps. It was further agreed that TIAA would refund to the plans any fees or other revenue sharing (including 12b-1 fees) in excess of 2.9 bps. “As a result, the plans’ total expenses on a per-participant (or ‘all-in’) basis were reduced to approximately $49 per year,” the agreement states.

Quest Diagnostics Faces Additional ERISA Litigation

The medical testing company is already facing scrutiny for its use of actively managed investments within its retirement plan; it is now the subject of a broader excessive fee lawsuit.

A new Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming Quest Diagnostics and several of its retirement plan committees as defendants.

The fiduciary breach lawsuit is yet another example of an “excessive fee” challenge to be filed in a district court claiming that the plan sponsor failed to meet ERISA’s prudence and loyalty standards. Quest Diagnostics is accused of failing to objectively and adequately review its retirement plan’s investment portfolio “to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost.” It is also accused of maintaining certain funds in the plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories.

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

A key fact included in the allegations is that the Quest Diagnostics plan reportedly has approximately $4 billion in assets, qualifying it as a “jumbo plan” in industry parlance. The plaintiffs say this means it should be able to secure easy access to very low-cost investment options, given the economies of scale such buying power generates.

“In many instances, defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the plan, and failed to consider certain collective trusts available during the class period as alternatives to the mutual funds in the plan, despite their lower fees and materially similar investment objectives,” the complaint states. “Defendants’ mismanagement of the plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the plan and its participants millions of dollars.”

The complaint argues that it is not prudent to select higher cost versions of the same fund even if a fiduciary believes fees charged to plan participants by the “retail” class investment were the same as the fees charged by the “institutional” class investment, net of the revenue sharing paid by the funds to defray the plan’s recordkeeping costs.

“Fiduciaries should not choose otherwise imprudent investments specifically to take advantage of revenue sharing,” the complaint states.

In addition to the single count regarding ERISA’s prudence and loyalty requirements, the complaint includes a second count that alleges the company also failed to adequately monitor the fiduciaries it tasked with serving the plan.

This complaint is not the only legal action Quest Diagnostics is facing with respect to its retirement savings program. In early July, the company became the target of one of a trio of lawsuits questioning the use of actively management funds provided by Fidelity. The asset manager itself is not named as a defendant in any of the complaints.

The full text of the new complaint is available here. Quest Diagnostics has not yet responded to a request for comment.

«