Dismissal Denied: 401k Case Against Edward Jones Will Continue

401k, ERISA, fiduciary responsibilities, 401k litigation
It seems that justice will be met. Eventually.

A federal judge has denied Edward Jones’ second motion to dismiss a case alleging ERISA violations by the company’s own retirement savings plan participants.

On March 27, U.S. District Judge John A. Ross once again refused to throw out the lawsuit, citing a lack of new evidence in support of dismissal. Ross explained that the defendants were largely using the same arguments used in the original motion one year prior, and therefore he’d reached the same conclusion.

Among the allegations, 401k plan participants claim the “Defendants ran the Plan to benefit Edward Jones and its corporate partners, rather than in the interests of participants and beneficiaries.” Investment options available within the plan included three managed by Edward Jones and over 40 managed by “Partners” or “Preferred Product Partners.”

The complaint goes on to say, “Plaintiffs contend Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to negotiate a more favorable fee arrangement with Mercer [HR Services, Inc.] for administrative services.”

The suit alleges excessive fees to the tune of tens of millions of dollars were paid to the recordkeeper despite the availability of nearly identical, lower-cost options.

Edward Jones contended that arguments in support of its motion for dismissal are based on a precedent established by a similar suit, Meiners v. Wells Fargo & Co.

However, Ross’ ruling outlined several differences between the cases, including the fact that the Edward Jones 401k savers were right to “raise an inference of disloyalty and imprudence” on their employers’ part in light of “allegations that Mercer’s fees nearly tripled over the class period” despite the fact that “market rates for recordkeeping services declined throughout the class period.”

In addition, the judge cited Tussey v. ABB, Inc., among several other cases, in which motions to dismiss were denied based on the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendants “failed to act with prudence” by neglecting their duty “to solicit bids and to monitor and control recordkeeping fees.”

Jessa Claeys
Insurance Editor at  | Web |  + posts

Jessica Claeys is an editor, writer, and graphic designer, who has been creating both print and digital marketing and communications content for 10+ years.

Jessa Claeys is a licensed insurance producer in the state of Colorado and an insurance editor for Bankrate. She currently covers auto, home and life insurance with the goal of helping others secure a healthy financial future. Jessa has over a decade of experience writing, editing and leading teams of content creators. Her work has been published by several insurance, personal finance and investment-focused publications, including BiggerPockets, 401(k) Specialist, BP Wealth and more.

Previous Article
401k, advisor, client retention, retirement

Disrupt Your 401(k) Business Before Someone Else Does

Next Article
401k, retirement, benchmarks, employees, employers

Top 10 Industries with the Best 401(k) Plans

Total
0
Share