Trader Joe’s 401(k) Plan Accused of Overinvesting in Single Fund, Mismanaging Forfeitures

Two more companies, in addition to Trader Joe’s, now face lawsuits related to 401(k) forfeitures.

In recent litigation, employers continue to be scrutinized due to 401(k) investments and the management of employee forfeiture funds.

Six former employees of the Trader Joe’s Co. filed a lawsuit against the grocery chain last week, as well as its board of directors and investment committee, claiming the 401(k) plan was overinvested in one fund with excessive fees and that the company mismanaged forfeited funds. Stephen et al. v. Trader Joe’s Co. et al. was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 28.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

According to the complaint, approximately 70% of plan assets—nearly $2 billion—were invested in one fund in the 401(k) plan—the American Funds American Balanced Fund R4—in 2019 and 2020.

Starting in 2021, the assets held in the fund were transferred to the Capital Group American Balanced Trust, a collective investment trust. While this version of the fund was available “at all times relevant,” fiduciaries at Trader Joe’s maintained the same R4 share class in the 401(k) until 2021, according to the lawsuit.

“To the financial detriment of plaintiffs and the participants, the R4 share class of the American Balanced Fund saddled the participants with needlessly high fees,” the complaint states. “The facts show that defendants wholly failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations in regard to monitoring plan investments and ensuring all fees paid by the plan and participants were reasonable and necessary.”

The plaintiffs—represented by law firms Jeffrey Hellman, Capozzi Adler and Muhic Law LLC—allege that the CIT version of the fund has lower fees and that fiduciaries should have replaced the R4 share class with the CIT. The former employees also argue that the failure of Trader Joe’s “to include a target date suite in the plan” was imprudent.

Capital Group, the plan’s recordkeeper, charged fee of $48 per participant for its recordkeeping services, which the lawsuit alleged is “grossly excessive” compared with what the fiduciaries could have negotiated, based on the size of the plan.

The Trader Joe’s Co. Retirement Plan had more than $2.7 billion in assets under management and 44,218 participants with account balances at the end of the plan’s year in 2023, according to its Form 5500 filing.

In addition, the company was accused of using millions of dollars in plan assets, obtained from participant forfeited funds, for its own benefit by using funds to reduce future company contributions.

Trader Joe’s did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

More than 30 other employers have been sued over the last year for using forfeiture funds toward reducing future employer contributions, even though, according to the IRS, 401(k) plan forfeitures can be used for any of three permitted purposes: to pay plan expenses, to reduce future employer contributions or to make an additional allocation to participants.

Just in the past week, two other companies have been hit with 401(k) forfeiture lawsuits.

Both AT&T Services Inc. and Brookdale Senior Living Inc. were accused of using forfeited plan assets to reduce future employer contribution obligations, with plaintiffs arguing in both cases that the fiduciaries used the forfeited funds for the company’s own benefit, rather than for plan participants.

Plaintiffs in the AT&T case are represented by Haffner Law PC, and plaintiffs in the Brookdale Senior Living case are represented by Miller Shah LLP. Haffner Law has represented plaintiffs in many of the forfeiture-related lawsuits in the past year.

A spokesperson from Brookdale Senior Living commented, “Brookdale is committed to operating with integrity and in full compliance with applicable laws. We remain focused on supporting our employees so they can provide high-quality care for our residents. It is our practice not to comment on pending litigation.”

A spokesperson from AT&T said, “We dispute the allegations in this lawsuit.  We comply with the law, and we manage our employee retirement funds responsibly.”

Other major companies recently targeted in 401(k) forfeiture litigation include JPMorgan Chase & Co., Amazon.com Inc. and BMO Financial Corp.

SECURE 2.0: What’s Effective This Year and What Plan Sponsors Need for 2026

While implementing SECURE 2.0 provisions effective 2025, plan sponsors prepare for a big change next year.

Several mandatory and optional provisions of the SECURE Act 2.0 of 2022 take effect this year, and recent IRS guidance has helped clarify some of the issues. Meanwhile, plan sponsors are also gearing up for a big change in 2026.

Here’s what to know for 2025 and beyond:

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Mandatory Auto-Enrollment for New Plans

Starting on January 1, new 401(k) and 403(b) plans must automatically enroll employees at 3% of pay and increase their contributions by one percentage point per year, up to at least 10% but no more than 15%.

Recent IRS proposed guidance clarified which plans are subject to the auto-enrollment requirement, which is more complicated than originally expected.

“Since the effective date is 2025, a lot of us thought it would be new plans in 2025, but it was retroactive—any plan [launched] post-enactment of the law,” says Kirsten Hunter Peterson, vice president of workplace thought leadership for Fidelity Investments.

The provision applies to new plans created since December 29, 2022.

“There are some carve-outs that are excluded—10 or fewer employees and any employer that hasn’t been around for at least three years has a grace period, and church and government retirement plans are exempt from this, too,” Hunter Peterson says.

Employees who already made a deferral election do not need to be auto enrolled – even if the election was to defer 0% of salary.

“We had newer plans that were established after that date that added auto-enroll, and we needed to look and see if they met the requirements,” says Kelly Rome, head of product development and management with Empower. “We have a lot of smaller plans, startup businesses, and it’s something that is going to be ongoing. Companies that have operated for less than three years are not required to add automatic enrollment and escalation until the company’s third anniversary. So for any new companies, we will do an annual reminder asking them to confirm if they still meet one of the exceptions.”

Long-Term, Part-Time Employees

The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 expanded 401(k) eligibility for long-term, part-time employees and made employees who have worked at least 500 hours in each of the past three years eligible to contribute to the plan.

“Part-time workers are disproportionately women, younger folks and older folks who are working a part-time job before they retire,” says Peterson. “We know there’s a lot of underrepresented groups who are part-time workers, and Congress wanted to make sure those workers weren’t left behind.”

SECURE 2.0 shortened the required years of service for long-term, part-time workers to be eligible to contribute to their employer’s plan for plan years beginning after December 31, 2024. SECURE 2.0 also expanded these coverage rules to 403(b) plans that are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

“Part-time employees who have completed at least 500 hours of service in each of two consecutive 12-months periods and are age 21 or older must be allowed to participate in 401(k) and ERISA-covered 403(b) plans,” says Tim Rouse, executive director of the SPARK [Society of Professional Asset-Managers and Recordkeepers] Institute.

Rather than keeping track of the hours, some plans decided to expand participation to all part-time employees.

“When they started to think about what they may need to do to track all of this, they said we have a small number of part-time employees; just let them into the plan,” says Rome. But it can be more complicated if the company has a lot of part-time employees and an employer match. “That’s different, because there could be a big financial impact.”

In that case, you need to track hours.

“We know who is in this space, and we’ve been able to get out in front of folks with tracking these hours on a year-by-year basis,” says Gregg Holgate, head of in-force management and client engagement for Transamerica.

Super Catch-Up Contributions

The super catch-up is a popular optional provision that first took effect in 2025. In years when plan participants turn age 60 through 63, they can make extra catch-up contributions—$11,250 rather than the standard catch-up contribution of $7,500 for people 50 or older in 2025. Adam Tremper, head of retirement platforms for T. Rowe Price, says 84% of its plans have adopted the super catch-up.

Eligible employees jumped at the chance to increase their contributions at Midwest Radiology in Roseville, Minnesota. Everyone who was eligible opted in, according to Barry Lindo, chief human resources officer.

“They were very excited,” says Lindo. “The people who weren’t excited were those that were a touch too old to participate.”

Plans need to work with their payroll provider to keep track of who turns 60 through 63 each year. People who turn 64 before year-end are not eligible for the extra catch-up.

Mandatory Roth Catch-Up Contributions for High Earners

One of the biggest issues plan sponsors are dealing with this year is a provision that takes effect in 2026. It requires that people at least 50 years old whose prior-year Social Security wages from an employer sponsoring the plan exceeded $145,000 make catch-up contributions to a Roth account, rather than a pre-tax account.

The IRS proposed guidance in January that included some important clarifications. For example, the $145,000 is based on prior year FICA earnings with the same employer that sponsors the plan to which the catch-up contributions are made, says Rome. The plan sponsor does not need to track down income with a previous employer. It also does not apply to people who do not pay FICA taxes.

“A lot of our government clients do not have FICA earnings—they do not pay into Social Security—so they were happy, because they are not subject to that,” Rome says.

The new rule calls for plan sponsors and their providers to collect data quickly at year-end.

“It requires integration between the plan sponsor and their payroll to identify that group of employees with FICA wages in excess of $145,000, and to do that as soon as possible by the end of the year so Principal can set a flag on our recordkeeping system to make sure those people are restricted from making pre-tax catch-up elections” in the new year, says Sondi Johnson, a senior relationship director with Principal Financial Group, Midwest Radiology’s recordkeeper. “There is definitely some complexity with that quick turnaround after the year-end to identify that employee group.”

Recordkeepers had been concerned about what happens to pre-tax catch-up contributions mistakenly made very early in the year, before the previous year’s W-2 earnings are finalized, says Rouse.

“SPARK’s recommendation to [the Department of the] Treasury was to deal with these last-minute W-2 changes by reclassifying pre-tax catch-up contributions as Roth and producing a 1099-R for the taxpayer. The recent response by Treasury, through its proposal on the Roth catch-up requirement, appears to agree with this process as an option.”

Education will be important, even with a plan like Midwest Radiology in which Roth contributions are already popular, says Johnson.

Otherwise, employees may not see the benefits of after-tax contributions. “You don’t want people not doing the catch-up because they don’t want the tax taken out right away,” says Kevin Crain, the executive director of the Institutional Retirement Income Council.

 

More on this topic:

Where Does SECURE 2.0 Implementation Stand for 2025?
Plan Sponsors Move Forward (Slowly) With SECURE 2.0 Provisions
PLANSPONSOR Roadmap Series: Catch-Up Provisions
Chavez-DeRemer Shows Support for Union Pension Assistance Law in Confirmation Hearing
PLANSPONSOR Roadmap Series: Student Loan Matching and Educational Benefits

«