Compliance April 23, 2007

AK Steel Pension Miscalculation Claim Upheld

April 23, 2007 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling awarding at least $46.2 million to 1,250 former employees of AK Steel Holding Corp. who claimed the steelmaker miscalculated their pension benefits under an early retirement program.
Reported by

The decision of the three-judge panel affirmed the conclusion of a lower court (see  AK Steel Charged $46M for Miscalculated Pension Benefits ). 

The plaintiffs, who had retired or were terminated since January 1, 1995, sued the company in 2002.  They said that AK’s method of calculating lump sum payments to workers who had not reached full retirement age did not comply with federal law and resulted in underpayments for participants in one of its pension plans, according to the Associated Press.

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

AK Steel spokesman Alan McCoy said Friday that the company is considering appealing the ruling and has several options for an appeal, according to the report.

Another Retiree Challenge

AK Steel has another case pending in federal court, where about 4,600 retirees are challenging the company’s announcement last year that it would start charging a monthly premium for a portion of their health care insurance, which had been free (see AK Steel Retirees Ask Court to Bar New Health Care Plan) .

A judge has temporarily blocked AK Steel from imposing that change until the case goes to trial.  

Compliance April 20, 2007

Xerox Company Stock Suit Survives First Challenge

April 20, 2007 (PLANSPONSOR.COM) - Xerox Corp. employees suing the company over its handling of their 401(k) investments in shares of company stock fell short of proving their allegations of a breach of fiduciary responsibility.
Reported by

But U.S. District JudgeAlvin W. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut told lawyers for the plaintiffs they could refile their lawsuit against Xerox, its present and former directors and officers, and members of various committees that administered the two Xerox 401(k) plans.

Thompson accepted an argument by Xerox that the suit failed to explain how each defendant was a fiduciary and how each purportedly breached his or her fiduciary duties. The court said the new lawsuit needed to fix that problem.

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

The employees alleged in the lawsuit that during the class period running from May 12, 1997, to Nov. 15, 2002, the defendants breached their Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties by retaining the Xerox Stock Fund as an investment option when it was imprudent because Xerox had purportedly engaged in accounting fraud that overstated the stock’s value.

Among other things, the suit charged that the defendants breached their duties under ERISA by not giving employees investing in the Xerox Stock Fund complete and accurate information about Xerox. According to the court, the defendants argued that the employees were attempting to impose on them a duty to provide investment advice.

“[A] duty to inform participants is not the same as a duty to provide investment advice,” Thompson declared in his ruling.

Also, the defendants charged they did not exercise authority or control with respect to investment in the Xerox Stock Fund, so they were not acting as fiduciaries, because the decision to invest in the fund was made by the participants themselves.

But, according to Thompson, participants could not have exercised control within the meaning of ERISA Section 404(c) unless the plan fiduciaries provided them with complete and accurate information.   

The employees alleged that Xerox had made false public statements and filed false Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings that were later disseminated to employees.

While it is true that the preparation and filing of documents with the SEC and making statements in press releases is not a fiduciary act in and of itself, “that fact does not mean that statements in those documents cannot become fiduciary representations if they are disseminated to Plan participants and beneficiaries,” Thompson pointed out.

The case is In re Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation, D. Conn., No. 3:02cv01138 (AWT), 4/17/07.

«