AAA Carolinas ERISA Lawsuit Settled for $500,000

The plaintiffs received early approval for class settlement in a retirement plan lawsuit against the Carolinas Auto Club that alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

A $500,000 class settlement between AAA Carolinas and former employees has received early approval in a North Carolina federal court. The plaintiffs brought a lawsuit that alleged retirement plan fiduciaries breached their duties to retirement plan participants.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, signed by defendants Carolina Motor Club Inc. and the Auto Club Group, over 2,000 current and former workers who receive benefits through the AAA Carolinas 401(k) plan will be covered.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The agreement received early approval from Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. The defendants denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the case in part to avoid the substantial costs of litigation, according to the settlement and stipulation.

Judge Cogburn defined the class period as beginning July 6, 2014, through the date the court grants preliminary approval of the settlement. Approval of class settlement resulted from negotiations between the parties to the lawsuit, judge Cogburn wrote in the class settlement order.  

“Plaintiffs and defendants, through counsel, conducted extensive, arm’s-length negotiations concerning a possible compromise and settlement of the action, including a day-long mediation,” Judge Cogburn, Jr., stated. “The parties exchanged mediation statements, which included argument, analysis, and damages calculations of consulting experts. Following negotiations, the parties reached agreement on material terms of the settlement, including the amount of the settlement fund and non-monetary relief, as set forth herein.”

By agreeing to a class settlement, defendants did not admit to fiduciary breach resulting in alleged harm to participants for retirement plan losses or any wrongdoing. 

“The Court has not decided in favor of either side in the action,” Cogburn stated.

“The settlement agreement, and these proceedings related to the approval of the settlement agreement, and this order are not evidence of any liability, responsibility, fault, or wrongdoing on the part of any party including any party receiving a release,” according to the settlement agreement and stipulation.

By the terms of the class settlement, defendants will pay or cause their insurance carrier to pay $500,000 into an account at a financial institution identified by class counsel, comprising the ‘Settlement Fund.’

The settlement amount includes expenses for administering the settlement, taxes, expenses and fees incurred for an independent fiduciary’s review of the settlement for the plan as well as court-approved attorney’s fees, expenses and compensation to the plaintiffs, the order states. 

“The net amount of the settlement fund, after payment of the aforementioned costs and expenses, will be allocated to the settlement class members according to the approved plan of allocation, if and when the court enters an order finally approving the settlement,” judge Cogburn stated.  

Plaintiffs brought the original lawsuit in 2021. The lawsuit alleged plan fiduciaries mismanaged the 401(k) plan, caused fiduciary breaches and failed to review the plan’s recordkeeping expenses through the request for proposal process periodically. Specifically, plaintiffs argued the retirement plan caused harm to participants, and was filled with high-priced and underperforming investment options.  

By the terms of the class settlement, defendants must agree that within two years of complete settlement approval, the Auto Club, directly or through its plan fiduciary committee, will conduct a request for proposal for recordkeeping services for the 401(k) plan.

AAA Carolinas did not respond to a request for comment on the class settlement.

When Can an Employee in a 457(b) Plan Use A Three-Year Catch-Up Election?

Experts from Groom Law Group and CAPTRUST answer questions concerning retirement plan administration and regulations.

“We are a private university who sponsors, among other plans, a 457(b) plan for our select management and highly compensated employees. The plan contains the three-year catch-up election for employees who are within three years of the normal retirement age of the plan (which in our case is 65). Our question is, can the employee actually use the election in the year in which he/she turns age 65 if he/she qualifies? We have an employee who turns age 65 in 2022 requesting that she use the election, but we think it might be too late for her to use the election, as she would have had to use it in the years that she turned ages 62, 63, and/or 64 if eligible. Are we correct?”

Charles Filips, Kimberly Boberg, David Levine and David Powell, with Groom Law Group, and Michael A. Webb, senior financial adviser at CAPTRUST, answer:

A:  This is an excellent question and often a source of confusion in calculating the three-year catch-up, but before we answer, the Experts should provide a bit more background on the three-year catch-up election. As indicated in a prior Ask the Experts column, the three-year catch-up is an election that all 457(b) plan sponsors (governmental and private tax-exempt) MAY include in their 457(b) plans (it is NOT required), where a participant in each of the three calendar years prior to the normal retirement age (as specified in the plan) can contribute the lesser of:

  1. Twice the annual limit ($41,000 in 2022); or
  2. The basic annual limit ($20,500 in 2022) plus the amount of the basic limit not used in prior years.

Thus, if the participant has no unused limitation in prior years (i.e., he/she has always “maxed out” deferrals), the election will be no use, since limit #2 ($19,500 + $0 in unused limit) would always apply. That is why this is a “catch-up” election, as it allows you to catch-up on contributions that you did not make in prior years. The limit may only be used for one three-year period and cannot be used in addition to the age-50 catch-up that applies to governmental plans (private-tax exempt plans cannot use the age-50 catch-up).

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

To answer your question, yes, the three-year catch-up is only available for the three calendar years prior to the calendar year in which the participant attains the plan’s normal retirement age. So, in your case, if the participant turns age 65 in 2022, the participant could not utilize the three-year catch-up election 2022. She could have only utilized it in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Thus, it is important to plan ahead for possible use of this election, if eligible.

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. 

Do YOU have a question for the Experts? If so, we would love to hear from you! Simply forward your question to Amy.Resnick@issgovernance.com with Subject: Ask the Experts, and the Experts will do their best to answer your question in a future column.

 

 


«