Serco Reaches $1.2 Million Settlement in Excessive Fee Class Action Suit

The suit had charged the Navy defense contractor with selecting mutual funds with an average expense ratio of 0.81% when funds costing 0.41% were available.

Navy defense contractor Serco Inc. has reached a $1.2 million settlement agreement in the excessive fee lawsuit that was filed against its 401(k) plan last year.

After nearly a year of discovery and motions following private mediation that began in November, the parties have agreed to what the class calls “fair and reasonable terms.” The settlement includes an injunction on the plaintiffs from filing additional lawsuits on the same grounds as the original case.

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

The settlement funds will be dispersed through a qualified settlement fund, with restorative money being given to participants in the Serco 401(k) plan and paper checks valid for 180 days to those who have left the plan. It awaits court approval.

The settlement agreement notes that the class wants to settle. In it, the defense denies all allegations and all liability for the allegations and claims.

The original Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The proposed class action complaint accused Serco of failing to provide its 401(k) plan participants with the most cost-effective mutual fund shares, among other issues. According to the complaint, the unnamed issuer of the mutual funds in the plan offered a lower-cost share class for at least 21 of the 30 funds in the lineup, and those funds consistently achieved higher returns.

“The plan, however, inexplicably failed to select these lower fee-charging and better-return producing share classes,” the complaint stated. “As well, the administrative fees charged to plan participants by the recordkeeper, also unnamed, were consistently greater than the fees of more than 90% of comparable 401(k) plans, when fees are calculated as cost per participant or when fees are calculated as a percent of total assets.”

The complaint went on to state these “investment options and unreasonable fees cannot be justified.

“Their presence confirms more than simply sloppy business practice; their presence is the result of a breach of the fiduciary duties owed by Serco Inc. to plan participants and beneficiaries,” the lawsuit continued. “Prudent fiduciaries of 401(k) plans continuously monitor administrative fees against applicable benchmarks and peer groups to identify unreasonable and unjustifiable fees.”

The lawsuit said that for plans with between $250 million and $500 million of assets, the mean expenses were 0.41% of assets under management (AUM), but the plan’s fees averaged 0.81%.

John Hancock Agrees to Procedural Changes in ERISA Suit Settlement

In addition to a $14 million payment, the defendants agreed to retain an independent third-party investment consultant to review investment options in the plan, among other things.

A $14 million settlement has been reached in a lawsuit accusing John Hancock Life Insurance Co. of self-dealing in its defined contribution (DC) plan.

The proposed class action suit suggested that John Hancock breached its Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties “by applying an imprudent and inappropriate preference for John Hancock products within the plan, despite their poor performance, high costs and lack of traction among fiduciaries of similarly sized plans.” In addition, the self-dealing lawsuit accused the firm of failing to monitor or control the plan’s administrative expenses, allegedly costing the plan millions of dollars in excessive administrative fees over the course of the class period.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Last year, a district court judge denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.

The settlement agreement also includes prospective relief in which the defendants agree to:

  • retain an independent third-party investment consultant to provide ongoing monitoring and review of the investment options in the plan’s investment lineup for at least five years from the settlement effective date;
  • develop and approve an investment policy statement (IPS) for the plan; and,
  • use the services of an independent consultant to assist with negotiating the next recordkeeping agreement and issuing a request for information (RFI) for recordkeeping services at or before the expiration of the plan’s current recordkeeping contract.
The settlement agreement says it is entered into solely for the purpose of avoiding possible future expenses, burdens or distractions of litigation. The defendants, individual benefits committee members, individual investment subcommittee members and any other released parties deny any and all wrongdoing and deny any and all liability in connection with any claims.

«

You have reached your limit of two free articles