Fiduciary Caused ESOP Participants To Overpay for Company Stock

A New Jersey District Court judge awarded more than $9.4 million to the plan.

A federal judge, presiding over a U.S. Department of Labor lawsuit, has found that First Bankers Trust Services Inc. breached its duties of prudence and loyalty to the participants of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) when it caused the plan to overpay for shares of the company’s stock.

U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.D. District Court for the District of New Jersey awarded to the plan $9,485,000 (plus interest), subject to the reduction in a 2016 consent order against SJP Group Inc.’s CEO Vincent DiPano.

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

SJP Group, the plan’s sponsor, hired First Bankers as an independent fiduciary to advise the company’s plan on whether, and at what price, to purchase company stock from its majority shareholder DiPano.

An investigation by the department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration found violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and, on July 17, 2012, the department filed suit against both First Bankers and DiPano seeking to recover losses suffered by the plan participants.

Following a 17-day trial, the court held that First Bankers breached its fiduciary duties to the plan’s participants by failing to conduct a prudent investigation into the fair market value of the shares. As a result, First Bankers approved the participants’ purchase of 38% of the outstanding stock of SJP Group from DiPano for $16 million, which was nearly $10 million more than what the stock was worth.

Shipp held that First Bankers failed to independently and thoroughly investigate the true value of the shares. As the plan’s fiduciary, it was responsible for ensuring that the participants paid no more than fair market value for the shares. In addition, Shipp found First Bankers relied on unrealistically optimistic projections of SJP’s future earnings.

“Participants’ retirement benefits depend on the plan buying and selling stock for fair market value, the department intends to make certain that the price a plan pays for the plan sponsor’s stock reflects its true market value,” says Jonathan Kay, EBSA’s regional director in New York. “Those retained to advise a plan about the stock purchase must fulfill their fiduciary duties under ERISA and prevent those who sell their shares to a plan from receiving an unwarranted windfall.”

In a 2016 consent order, the department resolved its allegations that DiPano violated his fiduciary duty by failing to monitor First Bankers adequately. DiPano agreed to pay $2.25 million in restitution and a penalty.

The department is currently in litigation with First Bankers in three other matters, in which the department similarly alleges that First Bankers failed to prudently determine the proper value of plan shares resulting in substantial losses to plans and their participants. The matters are all filed under the name of Secretary vs. First Bankers Trust Services, Inc. et al. The matters involve the Rembar Company, Inc. plan; the Maran, Inc. plan; and the Sonnax Industries, Inc. plan.

Target-Date Fund Reviews a Top Priority for Plan Sponsors

The second highest priority listed by plan consultants is an evaluation of investment fees.

Retirement plan consultants list reviewing target-date strategies as the top priority for their plan sponsor clients, according to the 11th annual PIMCO Defined Contribution Consulting Support and Trends Survey.

More than three-quarters (77%) of the 69 consultants surveyed said target-date fund reviews are the top priority over the next year for their plan sponsors clients, closely followed by an evaluation of investment fees (73%). The consultants participating in the survey advise more than 12,000 plan sponsors with more than $4 trillion in cumulative defined contribution assets.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Nearly all (97%) of consultants recommend target-date funds as the qualified investment default alternative (QDIA).

The largest percentage of consultants recommend plans with less than $1 billion in assets select a packaged active/passive blend fund when choosing target-date strategies. For larger plans, nearly half of the consultants (48%) recommend custom target-date strategies that enable tailoring of both the glide path and the investment manager line up, while just over one-quarter (27%) recommend packaged active/passive funds even for these mega plans.

Assets in custom target-date strategies continue to grow, with consultants reporting nearly $200 billion in custom target-date assets under management (AUM). At the median, consultants expect an additional 10% of clients to implement these strategies in the next three years.

“Nearly all consultants (98%) recommend that plan sponsors consider a target-date fund’s glide path as the most important factor in evaluating and selecting an investment default strategy,” saysStacy Schaus, executive vice president and author of the survey. “Consultants also note fees as an important consideration, which helps explain broad support for active and passive blend target-date strategies.”

Other consultant recommendations include:

  • The vast majority of consultants view active management as an important or very important investment approach for emerging market equity (94%), non-U.S. bonds (92%), U.S. bonds (88%), infrastructure/MLPs (87%), U.S. small cap equity (82%) and non-U.S. developed market equity (82%);
  • Nearly all consultants (97%) recommend core or core plus fixed income as a stand-alone core investment option, with the majority also supporting a second core bond choice such as a foreign or global fixed income or a multi-sector bond fund;
  • Most consultants (92%) recommend including one inflation-protection option in the core lineup, up from 84% in 2016. The top recommended stand-alone strategies in inflation-protection include inflation-linked bonds/TIPS (66%), multi-real asset strategies (55%) and REITs (50%); and
  • Consultants recommend stable value strategies over all other capital preservation alternatives, with 94% of respondents believing clients are very likely or likely to switch to stable value when seeking an alternative to money market funds.

«