Rush of Litigation Against Retirement Plans Expected to Continue

One insurer says the more than $1 billion in settlements thus far could make fiduciary insurance a thing of the past.

There have been approximately 200 “cookie-cutter” Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action lawsuits filed against retirement plans since 2015, including more than 90 cases filed in 2020 alone, says Jon Chambers, managing director at SageView Advisory Group, in a recent white paper, citing numbers from an industry insurer.

This includes an increase in lawsuits against smaller plans—i.e., those with less than $100 million in assets and fewer than 1,000 participants.

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

With more “cookie-cutter” cases being filed, especially when the qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) is a “big ticket” target-date fund (TDF), Chambers writes, there is no sign of these suits slowing down.

All this has largely been due to what Chambers calls “the Schlichter Blitzkrieg,” referring to the barrage of lawsuits the Schlichter Bogard & Denton law firm filed against 401(k) plans and university 403(b) plans beginning in 2006. Several years later, in mid-2015, numerous other plaintiffs’ law firms began filing “copycat” style lawsuits against 401(k) plan fiduciaries and recordkeepers, generally following Schlichter’s “proof of concept” excessive fee claims, he writes.

“Over the past 15 years, ERISA fiduciary litigation in defined contribution [DC] plans has grown from a rare event … to a seemingly everyday occurrence,” Chambers writes.

‘Insurability Risk’

Amid the rush of litigation, fiduciary liability insurance underwriter Euclid Specialty says claims are so commonplace that fiduciary liability insurance could disappear.

“We have reached an inflection point in the war against [DC] plans because the risk has become virtually uninsurable,” Chambers says in his white paper, quoting a Euclid report. Thus, insurers to plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries are now beginning to talk about “insurability risk,” according to Euclid.

“Insurance companies have paid well over $1 billion in settlements, but this economic model cannot continue,” Euclid says.

For now, insurers are starting to hedge their exposure by considering reducing coverage and increasing retention, according to Euclid.

To protect themselves against ERISA litigation, which is “clearly significant for fiduciaries”—particularly when it comes to excessive fee cases—Chambers says, “thankfully, there are many strategies that plan sponsors can employ to mitigate ERISA litigation risk.”

Strong Governance Procedures

The wall of defense should start with “risk-mitigation strategies based on governance procedures,” Chambers says.

“Appoint a committee to oversee the plan’s fiduciary responsibilities,” he continues. “Define the duties of the committee in writing (via a committee charter) and have the committee review the duties and charter periodically. Have the committee develop, adopt and periodically review an investment policy statement (IPS), possibly with the assistance of an independent investment adviser. Hold periodic meetings (e.g., quarterly), distribute agendas and materials in advance, and prepare minutes that memorialize actions and decisions taken at meetings.”

Chambers goes on to say that it is also important to “consider involving qualified legal counsel in committee meetings/plan review process[es]” and to “ensure fiduciaries are properly appointed and appropriately trained.”

It is also smart for retirement plan committees to review fiduciary liability insurance coverage, ensure limits and deductibles are appropriate, and review communications from plan vendors to participants, he says.

Law firm Hanson Bridgett says plan sponsors can often avoid participant complaints through regular, clear communication. It adds that plan sponsors must be sure to “follow up on any participant complaints.”

Of course, sponsors must also have set procedures for monitoring service providers. Best practices, it says, include reviewing performance, including adherence to contractual performance standards; reviewing fees for reasonableness; and negotiating fees where appropriate.

All of this must be accompanied by a formal annual review process, and thorough plan document and operational compliance, the firm notes.

Plan sponsors should also be on the lookout for claims and appeals issues, as well as service provider issues, Hanson Bridgett says. Data security and fraud prevention are becoming more and more critical, for example.

Along the lines of data security, plan sponsors also need to have strict governance rules for committee meetings that are held remotely and should look for updates from the DOL on general fiduciary issues, the firm advises.

Legislative and Regulatory Priorities

Hanson Bridgett goes on to say that plan sponsors should also stay abreast of any legislative and regulatory changes. Priorities for this year include the possible passage of the so-called “SECURE Act 2.0,” and a potential new fiduciary rule from the Department of Labor (DOL), it notes. Both actions would have a big effect on the retirement plan industry and could also affect plan sponsors.

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing has also been a topic of hot discussion and changing guidance. Retirement plan experts say sponsors should continue to look for the latest guidance from the DOL if they are interested in using such investments.

Finally, the DOL is likely to issue continuing guidance on including private equity in employer-sponsored DC plans, the law firm says.

Essential Considerations for DC Plan Investment Lineups

The purpose of a retirement plan and the demographics of its participants will help plan sponsors decide what types of investments they need to use to take participants from accumulation to decumulation.

Before evaluating investments for inclusion on a defined contribution (DC) plan fund lineup, plan sponsors need to decide what types of investments they want to use.

An article from Willis Towers Watson, “Moving the Needle on Defined Contribution Plans,” suggests that the purpose of the plan will help sponsors define the pieces of an investment lineup.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Evaluating Participant Demographics

David O’Meara, director, investments, Willis Towers Watson, says the first task in determining the purpose of a plan is framing who the end user of plan is—understanding its participants and how to unlock more value for them. He notes that there’s been an evolution in the DC plan industry over the past 20 or so years from offering an abundance of choices to offering more simplification, because DC plan participants have a hard time processing all those options and making good asset allocations with that amount of complexity.

“Plan sponsors need to know their plan demographics and the investment sophistication of participants,” says Michael Welz, president and chief investment officer (CIO) at USI Advisors. “If they have an unsophisticated participant base, it may not be viable to offer some investment options, such as sector or region funds, multi-sector or high yield.”

Welz says the age of participants matters as well. If the population is mostly young and has time to grow assets, the investment lineup can focus more on accumulation. But investments that help participants create income for retirement are also a key consideration for DC plan investment menus.

Plan sponsors can also track how many participants are using investment education tools provided by recordkeepers or advisers. If many are using these tools, it might give plan sponsors more flexibility in what investment options to offer.

Accumulation

In its article, Willis Towers Watson says one thing that can simplify investment lineups for participants is leveraging multimanager funds, which can help reduce style bias by any one manager relative to a fund’s benchmark.

“A lot of individuals will sell yesterday’s losers and buy yesterday’s winners, and, over time, that will detract from investment outcomes,” O’Meara says. “We find packaging multimanagers into single funds and white labeling them to be a more efficient way to build better investment choices for participants so they can maintain expected outperformance at lower investment risk. It is also better to put managers with different investment styles together to help participants avoid overtrading portfolios.”

Welz says if plan sponsors define the purpose of their plans, it will provide direction for the plan investment lineup. He adds that the plan’s purpose could be dynamic and change over time.

One purpose of DC plans is still to help participants grow their assets. For this objective, Welz says, plan sponsors should look for return-seeking investments.

Welz says target-date or target-risk funds are appropriate for the majority of participants because participants typically don’t know how to invest, and these accounts are tailored for them. “When combined with auto-enrollment, a target-date or target-risk fund as the QDIA [qualified default investment alternative] works very well,” he says.

However, he notes that every plan has a population of “do-it-myself” participants who put a fairly aggressive asset allocation into play. He adds that in addition to core equity and fixed-income options, plan sponsors should consider offering a brokerage window, depending on participant demographics.

Welz says there are so many different target-date fund (TDF) products that the chances are high that an off-the-shelf one will work for the vast majority of plans. However, he says, plan sponsors should go through a prudent process for selecting TDFs.

“For example, an in-depth process will take the population that uses TDFs—their income, contribution rates and account balances—and model it out to age 65. Then consider how on-track for a successful retirement they will be with the age-65 balance plus Social Security,” Welz says.

Regarding QDIAs and TDFs, specifically, investment experts fall into different schools of thought about what plan sponsors need to provide for participants. But O’Meara suggests that if a plan sponsor determines it wants to provide the very best investment solution it possibly can, that might involve not using an off-the-shelf QDIA.

“Sometimes it can only be done with a truly open architecture investment program,” he says. “This can open up doors to investing in asset classes not typically available in off-the-shelf solutions, namely alternative assets used by other institutional asset owners, such as real estate, private equity and hedge funds.”

With regard to custom TDFs, Welz says it takes a level of sophistication for committee members to understand the various benefits and drawbacks of them. He adds that some plan sponsors are reluctant to use custom TDFs because of the lack of a public benchmark or because of higher fees and the threat of excessive fee lawsuits. However, he says that when considering custom TDFs, plan sponsors should use the same in-depth process he suggests for off-the-shelf products.

Decumulation

Another aspect of reimagining investments is considering what role DC plans have in being a true retirement vehicle, considering the decline of defined benefit (DB) plans, O’Meara says.

“DC plans have been pretty good at helping participants save and invest money, but not so good at helping them turn accumulated savings into a sustainable income stream,” he says. “So many plan sponsors are now thinking about the purpose of the plan and whether it is to provide a seamless transition for participants to retirement so they can stay in the plan. Plan sponsors are asking, ‘Can we deliver something better than participants can get on their own, or is it our job to get them to and not through retirement?’”

Determining the purpose of the plan and the role the plan sponsor wants to have post-employment can open the door for different solutions to meet the needs of former employees, O’Meara says. He adds that solutions can be any number of things from an annuity or some type of investment with a guarantee to educational resources with a suite of services and funds that help participants better understand their needs in retirement and options for using DC account balances to meet those needs.

“We’re seeing more plan sponsors thinking about what to do to deliver something, whether DB-like or other tools to leverage the plan’s scale and economics to meet participants’ needs better than what they can get on their own,” O’Meara says.

“Over the last 10 years, if we asked clients ‘What is the purpose of your plan?’ in 99% of cases, it would be ‘to help participants grow assets,’” Welz says. “It’s only been in last few years that decumulation—providing income in retirement—has become a purpose.” He says this is historically how most DC plan investment lineups have been based—and why they have been dominated by equity funds.

“In general, most plans are underdiversified in fixed income,” Welz says. “I think the industry is looking to bridge the gap between accumulation and decumulation, so depending on which provider a plan sponsor is using, it might provide an annuity-based product or another type of investment product allowing quarterly or annual distributions.”

Thinking of the DC plan investment lineup in this way would mean including investment options to help pre-retirees de-risk their portfolios.

“DC plans tend to be growth-heavy, and not a lot of participants are in fixed-income funds,” O’Meara says. “If there will be people of advanced ages in the plan, the plan will need additional lower risk investment options or other diversifying investments that may help to build a more efficient, more robust, sustainable portfolio for retirees.”

ESG and D&I

Plan sponsors have also been thinking more about incorporating diversity and inclusion (D&I) efforts into their benefits programs. O’Meara says a plan sponsor wanting to make diversity and inclusion part of its DC plan’s purpose should think about who the investment lineup is developed for.

“In general, investment lineups benefit those who have the ability to save and those more comfortable with investment decisions,” he says. “So, plan sponsors should be thinking about those not able to save as easily to help them with that, and, for those less highly educated and less comfortable making investment decisions, plan sponsors should create ways to engage those participants and simplify the investment selection process. This could lead to better investor behaviors across the participant population.”

Welz says participants are requesting environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment options more frequently than in the past, and plan sponsors are asking consultants about them. “The demand is there, but I think there will be more willingness to add ESG investment options when the regulations are more clear,” he says.

«