Amended Lawsuit Targets Hess Corp.

Former Hess Corp. employee Joshua Wagner filed an amended complaint last week in Texas federal court against the global energy company.

The amended complaint alleges fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan failed to adequately monitor and control the plan’s investment fees, expenses, and costs, letting service providers charge excessive fees.

“The fiduciaries of the plan failed to replace the T. Rowe Price target-date mutual funds with substantially identical, but much less expensive, collective trust versions of these same funds,” attorneys wrote in the April 18 amended complaint.

Throughout the class period nearly “60% of the plan’s T. Rowe Price TDFs were significantly,” more expensive than available “substantially identical,” collective investment trusts, says the complaint.

The amended and initial complaints allege violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The amended complaint requests that the court certify the case as a class action lawsuit, defining the class period as the six years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this case through the date of judgment. 

In February, the initial complaint claimed Hess’ retirement plan operators failed to use their bargaining power as one of the largest 401(k) plans in the U.S. regarding the fees, expenses and costs charged against participants’ investments. 

In a court filing earlier this month, the parties agreed to certain lawsuit conditions: Wagner intended to file an amended complaint, and the defendants would have 60 days following the filing of the amended complaint to respond.

In the provision between Wagner, his counsel, Hess Corp. and counsel for the defendants—stipulation agreement of counsel and representatives—parties agreed Hess Corp. provided plaintiffs with the Hess Corporation Employees Savings Plan as amended and restated as of January 1, 2017, and four amendments to the plan.

Additionally, it specified “plaintiffs agree they will not name the individual Investment Committee members or any Hess Corporation officer by name as defendants at this time. Defendants agree they will not assert as a defense to the allegations in the Amended Complaint (and any subsequent amended complaints or pleadings) that Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are deficient based on a failure to name the proper committee or to name any individual defendants.”

Unnamed defendants are no longer named, in the amended complaint, the case docket shows.  

Between the amended and initial complaints, Hess Corp. filed court papers, admitting defense counsel to appear in and argue before the Texas federal court to represent defendants; and the court issued summonses to defendants.

The Hess Corporation Employees’ Savings Plan held $903,664,847 in retirement assets for 3,017 participants, as of the June 2023 filing to the Department of Labor, covering the 2022 plan year. 

Wagner was employed by Hess from August 2018 to November 2021 and participated in the plan.

Attorneys with law firm Figari & Davenport LLP and Foulston Siefkin LLP represent the plaintiff. The complaint did not include attorneys for the defendants. In the agreement, Hess Corp. was represented by attorneys with law firm Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC and Groom Law Group.

The lawsuit is Joshua Wagner v. Hess Corporation and Hess Corporation Investment Committee.

The case is heard in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas San Angelo.

Representatives of the attorneys for the plaintiff did not respond to a request for comment nor did representatives of the Hess Corp.