ERISA Amendment Could Lead to Increased Investment in Alternative Assets

The Retirement Savings Modernization Act would explicitly state that 401(k) plans can include investments in all asset classes, though this is not currently banned under existing law.

Senators Pat Toomey, R-PA, and Tim Scott, R-SC, along with Representative Peter Meijer, D-CO, revealed the text of a proposed bill called that “Retirement Savings Modernization Act” last week.

The bill is an amendment to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and would clarify that fiduciaries managing defined contribution plans are permitted to invest across all asset classes, and do not have to limit themselves to stocks and bonds.

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

In a press release issued by Senator Scott, the legislators explained that defined benefit plan investments tend to outperform defined contribution plans, because they invest in a wider range of assets. The release emphasizes private equity and real estate in particular as lucrative investments for defined contribution plans.

The release laments that defined contribution plan fiduciaries are often too cautious to invest in alternative assets when managing defined contribution plans for fear of being subject to ERISA-related litigation for investing imprudently. The legislators cite a study released by Georgetown that estimates that more diversified plans could increase retirement plan value by 17% over the life of the plan and reduce losses in a downturn.

As it stands now, ERISA does not ban investment in alternative asset classes, and so this amendment would not actually the change the law. Instead, the bill is intended to clarify the law for fiduciaries who may be unaware that they can invest in alternative asset classes, or fear being sued solely on that basis. The bill emphasizes that alternative asset classes are not exempt from ERISA’s fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, and these asset classes if chosen still have to be chosen through a prudent process.

This legislation is likely informed by growing research that shows that 401(k) plans might benefit from investing in alternative assets, but are cautious of doing so out of fear of ERISA litigation for imprudence.

The bill specifically names the following asset classes: commodities, public and private debt, digital assets, hedge funds, infrastructure, insured products and annuities, private equity, real assets, real estate or real estate related securities, and venture capital.

A number of industry groups, including the Small Business Investor Alliance, Voya Financial, and the American Securities Association, have offered their support for the bill.

Charlie Nelson, the vice-chairman of and chief growth officer at Voya Financial says that the bill “could help a lot of Americans reach their long term retirement goals.” Though the bill does not technically change existing law, it provides useful clarification and “gives comfort to plan sponsors around this topic” and should encourage increased investment in alternative assets in defined contribution plans. Nelson emphasizes that there is a lot of opportunity in alternative assets for defined contribution plans looking to diversify.

Though the legislators emphasize private equity and real estate in their statements regarding the bill, the crypto currency community may stand to gain the most from it. Bitcoin News celebrated the bill and noted that it would apply to crypto and likely encourage investment in it.

Although the bill does not name cryptocurrencies explicitly, it does name “digital assets.” Earlier this year, Fidelity unveiled an investment product called the Digital Assets Account which allows participants to invest in a fund that contains up to 20% bitcoin. This brought criticism from Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin and Tina Smith. They stated in an open letter addressed to Abigail Johnson, the CEO of Fidelity, that Bitcoin is a “volatile, illiquid, and speculative asset” and described the decision to include them in a 401(k) plan as “ill-advised.”

The Department of Labor also cautioned against investment in crypto in 401(k) plans in March. The department warned that fiduciaries should “exercise extreme care before they consider adding a cryptocurrency option to a 401(k) plan’s investment menu for plan participants.” The Department said that cryptocurrencies are unusually “speculative and volatile” and are more vulnerable to hacking.

Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh also stated that he would be open to more regulation on cryptocurrencies generally, and in retirement plans in particular, in a hearing before the House Education and Labor Committee in June.

In August, the SEC proposed amendment to Form PF, a confidential reporting form required of some investment advisers to help the SEC assess systemic risk in the economy. The amendment clarifies the definition of digital assets as those that are “issued and/or transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain technology” and requires advisers to disclose the value of a fund’s assets held as digital assets.

Charlie Nelson of Voya explains that there is not significant interest in crypto among plan sponsors today and digital assets are “not an area of high demand for retirement plan consultants.” 

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.

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

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.

«