DOL Weighs In on Fidelity Float Income Suit

The agency has asked an appellate court to reverse a district court’s dismissal of the case.

In an amicus curiae brief filed with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department of Labor (DOL) notes that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) prohibits retirement plan fiduciaries from using undisclosed float income obtained through plan administration for any purpose other than to benefit the ERISA-covered plan.

The brief was filed for the case of Kelley v. Fidelity Management Trust Co. in which participants from three 401(k) plans administered by Fidelity allege the firm engaged in prohibited transactions and breached its fiduciary duty by using float income to pay itself trust and recordkeeping fees above and beyond the fees authorized in the trust agreements between it and the plans. When plan assets are deposited on an interim basis in interest-bearing accounts before invested or disbursed as directed by the plans’ participants, the income earned on or derived from the assets while invested in such accounts is “float income.”

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

In the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Fidelity moved to dismiss on numerous grounds, including that float income is not a plan asset, that Fidelity is not an ERISA fiduciary with regard to float, and that, even if the float income is a plan asset, Fidelity properly used float income for the benefit of the plans to pay administrative fees accrued by third-party financial institutions.

The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, determining that, as a matter of property law, the plans “do not own the underlying assets of the mutual fund in which they invest” and have only “a property interest in the shares of the mutual fund in which the participant has invested.” The District Court concluded that, because Fidelity owns the accounts that generated float income, that income is not a plan asset and consequently there is no violation of ERISA with regard to the float. 

The District Court also concluded that Fidelity is not an ERISA fiduciary when it comes to the float practices, reasoning that because Fidelity had complied with plan documents in processing withdrawals from the plan, it fulfilled its fiduciary duties. “As a result,” the court said, “Fidelity was no longer acting as a fiduciary” when it engaged in the float practice at issue. If the plans wanted to make Fidelity responsible to pay the float to them or their participants, the court reasoned that the onus was on them to negotiate for this arrangement.

NEXT: The DOL disagrees

In its brief, the DOL said it “fundamentally disagrees” with the District Court’s conclusion that the onus was on the participants to negotiate for a different float arrangement. The DOL’s float guidance specifically and correctly places that responsibility with the fiduciaries and service providers to disclose float, and the allegation in this case is that the plan sponsor and participants were never in a position to negotiate float because it was never disclosed.

Specifically, the DOL noted it has issued three pertinent guidance documents concerning fiduciary duties for float income. These documents all take the position that an ERISA fiduciary engages in prohibited self-dealing and acts disloyally when it retains float income, unless: the fiduciary disclosed sufficient information to enable the plan to make an informed decision with respect to the float arrangement; the plan has reviewed and agreed to the arrangement; and the arrangement does not permit the fiduciary to affect the amount of its compensation.

The agency said, if the allegations that Fidelity Trust 1) did not disclose the float income; 2) did not negotiate for extra compensation in the form of the float income or provide the plans with information sufficient to understand the defendants’ compensation; and 3) had discretion to use the float income to pay themselves excessive compensation are proven, it would establish that Fidelity, as a fiduciary to the plans, “deal[t] with the assets of the plan[s] in [its] own interest or for [its] own accounts” and caused the plans to engage in a transaction that it knew or should have known constituted a “direct or indirect transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a party in interest [i.e., Fidelity], of any assets of the plan[s].”

The DOL also disagreed with the District Court’s holding that Fidelity Trust, a trustee to the plans, was not a fiduciary with respect to float, noting that Fidelity allegedly exercised discretion over plan assets outside the bounds of the plan documents, which did not expressly permit Fidelity’s float program. The brief says Fidelity was a fiduciary with respect to the plans’ redemptions, including the accrual of float income because it allegedly “exercise[d] discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of [the plans]” by directing and controlling, from start to finish, the process of the plans’ redemptions. In addition, the DOL says, Fidelity was a fiduciary because it “exercise[d] any authority or control respecting the management or disposition of [the plans’] assets” when Fidelity redeemed or sold the plans’ ownership interest in the mutual fund investments and transferred cash to the interest-bearing float accounts.

The DOL’s amicus curiae brief is here.

Most Are Optimistic About Housing Expenses in Retirement

One-third of Americans would use extra money in retirement to pay off a mortgage or buy a dream home, a study finds.

If given an extra $300,000 in retirement, 20% of Americans would use it to pay off a mortgage, and 15% would buy a dream home, according to a Voya Financial survey.

Nearly one-quarter (23%) would save the money for future health-care needs, and 17% would pay off non-mortgage debt. Only 13% of consumers would use the cash for travel, while 4% would buy toys such as a new car or boat.

The survey found that Americans are most concerned about the cost of health care in retirement. Forty-one percent cited it as their biggest retirement worry, compared with 15% who are plagued by housing expenses. Most of those not yet retired (85%) said they plan to own a home in retirement, while only 12% expect to rent.

Eighty percent of homeowners said they are optimistic about paying off their mortgage before retirement, but 26% of current retirees said they still have an outstanding mortgage balance.

More than half (57%) of respondents said they plan to spend about the same on housing in retirement as they do now. Among those who plan to adjust their housing budget, more than twice as many respondents (27%) plan to downsize to a cost-effective home as buy their dream home (12%).

NEXT: Deciding where to live

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

When it comes to relocating in retirement, the results were split. Half of respondents plan to move, while 49% said they are happy with where they live.

Thirty-eight percent of survey respondents said the proximity to loved ones is the most important factor in deciding where to live in retirement, while 12% cited cost of living. Although many are concerned about health care in retirement, only 6% said that access to good or affordable health care was a priority for where to live.

“Retirement goals are personal, and each individual or couple is on their own journey. The one constant, however, is to make sure you map out a plan to reach your destination,” says Rich Linton, Voya’s president of large corporate and retail wealth management markets.

Voya is currently offering the Orange House Sweepstakes as a reminder for individuals to think holistically about retirement and to identify short- and long-term goals, Linton says. One winner will be granted $300,000 with the hope that he or she will apply the money toward a house in retirement. The deadline is April 24, and more details are at voya.com/OrangeHouse.

More information about the Voya survey is available at https://professionals.voya.com/stellent/public/SURVEYRESULTS.pdf.

-Corie Hengst

«