Morgan Stanley wins dismissal of 'pay to play' suit

Ruling hinged on the firm's disclosure of revenue-sharing agreements

Feb 27, 2014 @ 10:46 am

By Mason Braswell

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit against Morgan Stanley alleging that the firm violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by unlawfully directing business to ING as part of a “pay to play” scheme.

Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York said that Skin Pathology Associates Inc. did not have a case under ERISA law, because a reasonable amount of revenue sharing was permitted under ERISA, provided that it was disclosed.

Moreover, the order ruled that Morgan Stanley only needed to provide Skin Pathology with a general description, and not the details of how much was revenue was being shared as part of the agreement.

“Fee-sharing arrangements, kickbacks, 'soft dollars,' etc., between service providers [such as Morgan Stanley] and third parties [such as ING] make a contract for services between plans and service providers unreasonable under [ERISA] if they are not disclosed,” Ms. Torres wrote in her order. “Put differently, the cover-up is worse than the crime.”

(More: Morgan Stanley shuffles top leadership with addition of new role)

Skin Pathology Associates argued in its original complaint that it had elected to have ING Life Insurance and Annuity Co. manage its retirement assets because of a recommendation from Morgan Stanley.

The medical lab said that Morgan Stanley's recommendation was biased because it received additional compensation from some, but not all, of its so-called Alliance Partners, or top-tier money managers, for the amount of assets that are sent to them.

“Plaintiff alleges that Morgan Stanley's additional compensation arrangement constitutes a conflict of interest, because instead of finding the best fit for the plan, Morgan Stanley promoted Alliance Partners, like ING, that provide the 'pay to play' fee,” Ms. Torres wrote.

Under certain circumstances, that could have constituted a violation of ERISA law if Morgan Stanley had been found to have acted as a fiduciary or if Morgan Stanley had been paid with retirement plan assets, according to David Levin, a partner focusing on ERISA law for the firm Drinker Biddle & Reath.

(Don't miss: SEC's Mary Jo White's top priority: uniform fiduciary standard)

But Ms. Torres said that in making the recommendation to ING, Morgan Stanley's role was only as a “party of interest,” not a fiduciary, and that no plan assets changed hands as part of the agreement.

ERISA permits brokers or service providers such as Morgan Stanley to accept compensation for directing business to a retirement plan provider, provided that it is “reasonable compensation.”

According to the ruling, Morgan Stanley provided Skin Pathology with a description of the compensation arrangement that Skin Pathology challenged in the litigation. The court said that based on ERISA law, Morgan Stanley did not have to provide a full rundown of how much payment it received.

“In all of these cases, disclosure becomes a critical aspect,” Mr. Levin said.

“It doesn't make [something that's] good bad or bad good,” he said. “It's simply the notion that someone can raise it and deal with it.”

A spokeswoman for ING, Emily Dawe, said the firm had no comment.

Skin Pathology Associates dismissed ING as a defendant during the course of hearings.

The medical lab didn't return calls seeking comment.

Morgan Stanley said it is happy with the dismissal.

“We're pleased the court dismissed these unfounded claims,” Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Christy Jockle said.


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Upcoming Event

May 02


Women Adviser Summit

The InvestmentNews Women Adviser Summit, a one-day workshop now held in four cities due to popular demand, is uniquely designed for the sophisticated female adviser who wants to take her personal and professional self to the next level.... Learn more

Featured video


Top questions surrounding future of DOL fiduciary rule

Reporter Greg Iacurci and managing editor Christina Nelson discuss the biggest uncertainties springing from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to vacate the regulation.

Latest news & opinion

SEC forging ahead on fiduciary rule despite DOL rule decision in 5th Circuit

Chairman Jay Clayton says 'the sooner the better' when asked when an SEC fiduciary rule will be ready.

What the next market downturn means for small RIAs

Firms that have enjoyed AUM growth because of the runup in stocks may find it hard to adjust to declining revenues if the market suffers a major correction.

DOL fiduciary rule likely to live on despite appeals court loss

Future developments will hinge on whether the Labor Department continues the fight to remake the regulation its own way.

DOL fiduciary rule: Industry reacts to Fifth Circuit ruling

Groups on both sides of the fiduciary debate had plenty to say.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacates DOL fiduciary rule

In split decision, judges say agency exceeded authority.


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print