9th Circuit Affirms Ruling in Retail Fund Dispute

March 25, 2013 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – An employer lost another legal battle for failure to ask about lower-priced investments for its retirement plan.

In Tibble v. Southern California Edison, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s judgment in a class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by beneficiaries who alleged that their pension plan was managed imprudently and in a self-interested fashion. The panel held that the defendants did not violate their duty of prudence under ERISA by including in the plan menu mutual funds, a short-term investment fund akin to a money market, and a unitized fund for employees’ investment in the company’s stock. However, the panel affirmed the district court’s holding that the defendants were imprudent in deciding to include retail-class shares of three specific mutual funds in the plan menu because they failed to investigate the possibility of institutional-share class alternatives.  

The 9th Circuit also denied Edison defense that its actions were protected under ERISA section 404(c). According to the court opinion, Edison reads this statutory language as insulating it from all of beneficiaries’ claims because each challenged investment was a product of a “participant’s or beneficiary’s exercise of control,” by virtue of his selection of it from the plan menu. Disagreeing, the Department of Labor (DOL) directed the court to its previously announced interpretations (see “Solis Argues Prudence Claims Should not be Time-Barred”). In a 1992 regulation, it stated that in order to fall within section 404’s ambit, the breach or loss would need to be the “direct and necessary result” of the action by the beneficiary. A preamble that went through the notice-and-comment process and appeared in the agency’s final rule, stated that “the act of limiting or designating investment options which are intended to constitute all or part of the investment universe of an ERISA section 404(c) plan is a fiduciary function which . . . is not a direct or necessary result of any participant direction.”  

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

The appellate court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Edison defendants on the beneficiaries’ claim that revenue sharing between mutual funds and the administrative service provider violated the pension plan’s governing document and was a conflict of interest. The district court found there was no evidence plan fiduciaries considered revenue-sharing in their selection of the retail funds (see “Court Buys Retail vs. Institutional Share Fee Claims”).  

The case drew much attention for its potential implications for plan sponsors, and groups representing many sides filed briefs in the case (see “ICI Submits Brief in Retail vs. Institutional Funds Case”).  

The 9th Circuit’s opinion is here.

More Employers Use Incentives for Wellness Programs

March 25, 2013 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Companies are increasingly offering incentives for employees to participate in wellness programs, a survey by Aon Hewitt finds.

According to the survey, 83% of employers now offer their employees incentives for participating in programs that help employees become more aware of their health status. These actions may include taking a health risk questionnaire or participating in biometric screenings. 

This 83% of employers offer: 

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

  • Incentives in the form of a reward (79%);  
  • Incentives in the form of a consequence (5%); or 
  • A mix of both rewards and consequences (16%). 

“Questionnaires and biometric screenings are the key tools in providing that important information and serve as the foundation that links behaviors to actions,” said Jim Winkler, chief innovation officer for health and benefits at Aon Hewitt. “Motivating people to participate through the use of incentives is a best practice in the industry and these strategies will continue to be a critical part of employers’ health care strategies in the future.” 

The survey showed that nearly two-thirds (64%) of employers offer monetary incentives of between $50 and $500, and that nearly one in five (18%) offer monetary incentives of more than $500. 

Employers reported positive results to offering such health-related incentives. More than half saw improved health behaviors and/or an increase in employee engagement. Nearly half of employers said such incentives were a positive impact on employee morale, satisfaction and/or attitudes. Forty-four percent saw changes in health risks. 

In the future, companies anticipate:  

  • Tying incentives to programs that focus on health 365 days a year (34%);  
  • Using game theories and concepts to improve existing programs (22%);  
  • Rewarding employees who meet predetermined criteria (20%); and  
  • Imposing consequences on employees who do not take appropriate actions for improving their health (58%). 

 

The survey covered nearly 800 large and mid-size U.S. employers and represented more than seven million employees. 

«