Subscribe

New Schlichter lawsuit targets MEP

statue-with-scales-in-front-of-pile-of-law-books

The prominent 401(k) litigation firm filed a class-action lawsuit this week against Pentegra Retirement Services

Pentegra Retirement Services is being sued over its multiple-employer plan, court documents filed Tuesday show.

The case is the latest brought by law firm Schlichter Bogard & Denton, which for more than a decade has led the way amid a massive amount of class-action litigation against retirement plan sponsors.

The law firm, seeking to represent a proposed class of more than 25,000 people, alleges that Pentegra breached its fiduciary duty by letting record-keeping and investment costs skyrocket and by engaging in self-dealing.

Administrative costs were several times higher for participants than those in comparably sized plans that bargained for lower rates, the lawsuit alleges. The investment fees of the mutual funds and collective investment trusts on the plan menu were also as much as 9,000% higher than rates available for lower-cost share classes of the same products, the complaint stated.

Pentegra’s Defined Contribution Plan for Financial Institutions represented more than $2.1 billion in assets among nearly 30,000 participants at about 250 employers, mostly small banks and credit unions, as of the end of 2018, data from the Department of Labor show.

“To date we’ve not been served, but obviously we’re aware of the complaint,” Pentegra general counsel Robert Alin said. “We reject the claims and intend to mount a vigorous defense against them. In fact, Pentegra is looking forward to strongly defending [against] this lawsuit and standing up for the valuable services we provide to participating employers and their employees.”

The lawsuit tries to paint a picture of conflicts of interest as the plan’s board, which included Pentegra employees, agreed to contracts with the company, including the use of its own CITs.

In 2018, participants paid about $390 per year in record-keeping and administrative fees, while a more reasonable rate for a plan that size was about $65, according to the complaint.

“In light of the excessive fees and increasing amounts paid while services remained constant, it is evident that defendants did not engage an independent fiduciary to review and approve the arrangement between Pentegra and the plan,” the complaint read.

The lawsuit also points to other costs absorbed by the plan, citing hotel fees as an example.

“In 2010, plan assets were used to make a $7,370 payment to the Ritz Carlton Naples and $5,015 payment to the New York Palace Hotel, presumably for defendants’ personal benefit,” the complaint read.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

It named two plaintiffs but is seeking class certification for many more.

The plaintiffs are seeking restitution for the alleged losses and attorneys’ fees. They are also asking for the removal of plan fiduciaries who allegedly breached their duties to participants and to reform the plan with lower-cost investments and cheaper administrative services.

[More: The SECURE Act and open MEPs: Opportunities and threats for advisers]

Related Topics:

Learn more about reprints and licensing for this article.

Recent Articles by Author

Active ETFs are on a roll

There has been an explosion in the number of products and total assets in active ETFs – and things might just be getting started.

If it’s a rollover, it’s fiduciary

The new fiduciary rule will pull a lot of brokers under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and harkens back to the levelized compensation from the 2016 rule.

A look at Schwab’s TD migration, 8 months in

The company says it has been working to make former TD RIA clients happy, but smaller alternative custodians say they've been getting a lot of business.

Big asset managers silent over ESG backlash

Regulatory uncertainty, performance, and politicization has discouraged some advisors and fund shops.

Speed of DOL fiduciary rule rollout branded ‘unAmerican’

Opponents left disappointed after final rule released, DOL accused of 'conducting an ideological campaign to ban commissions'.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print