by James W. Watkins, III, J.D., CFP Board Emeritus™ member, AWMA®
Recent developments in the 401(k) and 403(b) litigation arena suggest that a major change is coming to said landscapes, none more so than the amicus brief that the Department of Labor’s (DOL) recently filed with the 11th Circuit in connection with Pizarro v. Home Depot, Inc. (Home Depot).
But first, a little background. First, in Hughes v. Northwestern University1, SCOTUS upheld the provisions of ERISA Section 404(a) by ruling that each individual investment option within a plan must be legally prudent. Then, in Forman v. TriHealth, Inc.2, the Sixth Circuit suggested that dismissal of 401(k) actions based on the alleged cost of discovery to plans is premature and inequitable, Chief Judge Sutton stating that
“This wait-and-see approach also makes sense given that discovery holds the promise of sharpening this process-based inquiry. Maybe TriHealth “investigated its alternatives and made a considered decision to offer retail shares rather than institutional shares” because “the excess cost of the retail shares paid for the recordkeeping fees under [TriHealth’s] revenue-sharing model….” Or maybe these considerations never entered the decision-making process. In the absence of discovery or some other explanation that would make an inference of imprudence implausible, we cannot dismiss the case on this ground. Nor is this an area in which the runaway costs of discovery necessarily cloud the picture. An attentive district court judge ought to be able to keep discovery within reasonable bounds given that the inquiry is narrow and ought to be readily answerable.”3
“The fact that other courts have not suggested the use of “controlled” discovery has always interested me, it that is seems perfect for 401(k)/403(b) litigation. In controlled discovery, the plaintiffs would submit all discovery requests to the court for approval. As Judge Sutton suggested, since the only discovery that would be needed at this preliminary stage would be regarding whether the plan complied with the legal independent and objective investigation and evaluation requirement, the discovery request could be as simple as “any and all materials relied upon by the plan sponsor in determining that each investment option with the plan was legally prudent, including, but limited to reports, analyses, third-party research and analyses, notes, advertisements, articles, books, magazines and other publications.”4
The DOL Amicus Brief
On February 10, 2023, the DOL filed an amicus brief (DOL brief) with the 11th Circuit in connection with the Home Depot case. I believe that the DOL’s amicus brief may be instrumental in finally creating a universal and equitable application of the ERISA in the legal system.
As a fiduciary risk management counsel, I am actually more interested in the macro aspects of the amicus brief since it would have a much broader national application. For that reason, I am not going to get into the specifics of the Home Depot case. The amicus brief gave a brief analysis of the issues involved in the case. The brief identified the question before the 11th Circuit:
“Whether, in an action for fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a), once the plaintiff establishes a breach and a related plan loss, the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove the loss is not attributable to the fiduciary’s breach.”
The brief then addressed the issues with the district court’s ruling and the issues that the 11th Circuit should consider.
“The district court did not grapple with whether to import trust law’s burden shifting rule because it erroneously that this Court in Willett had already decided that plaintiffs exclusively bear the loss-causation burden in ERISA cases. But Willett did not even consider burden shifting, let alone reject it. If anything, Eleventh Circuit precedent—including Willett itself—supports applying trust law’s burden shifting rule to ERISA fiduciary breach cases.”5
“While Willett did not explicitly address burden shifting, other Eleventh Circuit cases have endorsed the rationale behind it. This Court has long acknowledged that ERISA “embod[ies] a tailored law of trusts” and has cautioned that courts should engage in a thorough analysis before determining that a “prominent feature of trust law” does not apply where ERISA is silent. Useden, 947 F.2d at 1580, 1581 (recognizing the “incorporation of procedural trust law principles” in ERISA). To determine whether a rule should be incorporated into ERISA’s common law, the Eleventh Circuit instructs that “courts must examine whether the rule, if adopted, would further ERISA’s scheme and goals.” 6
“Moreover, by adopting burden shifting, this Court would promote uniformity in the governance of ERISA plans by aligning with its sister circuits that already apply a burden-shifting framework for proving loss causation in ERISA fiduciary breach cases.”7
As I said, I believe that the DOL’s amicus has a far greater implications for 401(k)/403(b) litigation. The DOL’s amicus brief essentially adopted the earlier argument of both the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in their Brotherston decision, and the Solicitor General in its amicus brief to SCOTUS. All three noted that trust law supports the idea that in cases involving a fiduciary relationship, the general rule that a plaintiff must prove all part of its cases, is replaced by shifting the burden of proof as to causation to the fiduciary/plan sponsor.
“As the Supreme Court and this Court have recognized, where ERISA is silent, principles of trust law—from which ERISA is derived—should guide the development of federal common law under ERISA. Trust law provides that once a beneficiary establishes a fiduciary breach and a related loss, the burden on causation shifts to the fiduciary to show that the loss was not caused by the breach. That is why five circuits have held that once an ERISA plaintiff proves a fiduciary breach and a related loss to the plan, the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove the loss would have occurred even if it had acted prudently.”8
“When a statute is silent on how to assign the burden of proof, the “default rule” in civil litigation is that “plaintiffs bear the burden of persuasion regarding the essential aspects of their claims.” But “[t]he ordinary default rule, of course, admits of exceptions.” Id. One such exception is found in the common law of trusts, from which ERISA’s fiduciary standards derive. Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U.S. 523, 528 (2015). Trust law provides that “when a beneficiary has succeeded in proving that the trustee has committed a breach of trust and that a related loss has occurred, the burden shifts to the trustee to prove that the loss would have occurred in the absence of the breach.”9 (citing Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 100 cmt. f}.
“As Judge Friendly explained, ‘Courts do not take kindly to arguments by fiduciaries who have breached their obligations that, if they had not done this, everything would have been the same.’”10
“This burden-shifting framework reflects the trust law principle that “as between innocent beneficiaries and a defaulting fiduciary, the latter should bear the risk of uncertainty as to the consequences of its breach of duty.” Trust law requires breaching fiduciaries to bear the risk of proving loss causation because fiduciaries often possess superior knowledge to plan participants and beneficiaries as to how their plans are run.”11 (citing Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 100 cmt. f.)
Citing Brotherston, the amicus brief notes that
“Given that an ‘ERISA fiduciary often . . . has available many options from which to build a portfolio of investments available to beneficiaries,’ the First Circuit reasoned that ‘it makes little sense to have the plaintiff hazard a guess as to what the fiduciary would have done had it not breached its duty in selecting investment vehicles, only to be told ‘guess again.”” The court thus held that “once an ERISA plaintiff has shown a breach of fiduciary duty and loss to the plan, the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove that such loss was not caused by its breach.'”12
“[T]rust law’s burden-shifting rule ‘comports with the structure and purpose of ERISA,’ which is “to protect ‘the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries.’ To require that the plaintiff—who has already proven a breach and a related loss—also prove that the loss would not have occurred absent the breach ‘would provide an unfair advantage to a defendant who has already been shown to have engaged in wrongful conduct, minimizing the fiduciary provisions’ deterrent effect.’”13
The amicus brief went on to address the general position of federal circuit court jurisdictions with regard to shifting the burden of proof on causation in ERISA actions.
“The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits unequivocally hold that, once a plaintiff has proven a breach of fiduciary duty and a related loss to the plan, the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove that the loss was not caused by the breach.14
As I said earlier, I believe the DOL’s amicus brief has the potential to have a significant impact in 401(k) and 403(b) litigation, especially when combined with the Northwestern and TriHealth factors. While I see numerous issues that plan sponsors will need to consider, I believe that three key issues that will need to be considered are selection of and reliance on third-party consultants, reconsideration of fiduciary disclaimer clauses, and inclusion of annuities in pension plans, in any form.
While the district court cited the 6th, 9th and 10th circuits in support of not shifting the burden of proof as to causation, the DOL pointed out that in the cases cited by the district court, “the Sixth and Ninth Circuit cases did not directly address loss causation at all.”15 As for the 10th Circuit’s refusal to adopt shifting the burden of proof on causation, the DOL pointed out that the 10th Circuit’s position was purportedly based on the 11th Circuit’s misinterpretation of of its own decision in Willett.16
1. Selection and Reliance on Third-Party Consultants
It continues to amaze me that plan sponsors blindly rely on the advice of mutual funds and insurance agents rather than experienced ERISA attorneys. Despite the warnings of the courts that such practices are in clear violation of ERISA, the courts have warned plan sponsors that such practices are impractical.
“A determination whether a fiduciary’s reliance on an expert advisor is justified is informed by many factors, including the expert’s reputation and experience, the extensiveness and thoroughness of the expert’s investigation, whether the expert’s opinion is supported by relevant material, and whether the expert’s methods and assumptions are appropriate to the decision at hand. One extremely important factor is whether the expert advisor truly offers independent and impartial advice.”17
“[The plan sponsor] relied on FPA, however, and FPA served as a broker, not an impartial analyst. As a broker, FPA and its employees have an incentive to close deals, not to investigate which of several policies might serve the union best. A business in FPA’s position must consider both what plan it can convince the union to accept and the size of the potential commission associated with each alternative. FPA is not an objective analyst any more than the same real estate broker can simultaneously protect the interests of “can simultaneously protect the interests of both buyer and seller or the same attorney can represent both husband and wife in a divorce.”18
Whether voluntarily or as a result of a decision by SCOTUS, I believe that there is little doubt that the Restatement’s position on the shifting of the burden of proof as to causation will become the universal rule in ERISA actions.
2. Reconsideration of Fiduciary Disclaimer Clauses
They have never made sense from a fiduciary liability standpoint. They make even less sense now with the consensus position of the DOL, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Solicitor General on the shifting of the burden of proof as to causation.
As I have explained to plan sponsors, trustees and my other fiduciary risk management clients, this is basic argument an ERISA should make in claiming that granting a plan adviser a fiduciary disclaimer clause is in itself a breach of one’s fiduciary duties.
So, you hired a plan adviser because you did not feel confident in your ability to properly evaluate the prudence of investment options for the plan; yet you agreed to provide the plan adviser with a fiduciary disclaimer clause, arguably releasing the plan provider from any liability for providing poor investment advice and harming the plan participants, resulting in the selection and evaluation being right back in your hands, and in so doing, essentially acknowledged your negligence and a breach of your fiduciary duties.
As I tell my clients, if a plan adviser feels the need to request a fiduciary disclaimer clause, in essence telling you they have no confidence in the quality of their advice, should that not raise a huge red flag for plan sponsors? Don’t go there!
3. Inclusion of Annuities in Pension Plans
“Guaranteed income for life” But as my late friend, insurance adviser Peter Katt, used to say, “at what cost?”
Annuity advocates refuse to acknowledge the inherent fiduciary liability issues with annuities. With SECURE and SECURE 2.0, visions of sugarplums danced in the heads of every annuity advocate.
Annuity advocates like to try to ignore the potential fiduciary liability issues by discussing all the various “bells and whistles” that annuities offer. And I used to engage in such nonsense, forgetting the sound advice to “never argue with someone who believes their own lies.”
Even before the DOL’s amicus brief, I warned my clients that annuities were a fiduciary trap. Smart plan sponsors do not voluntarily assume unnecessary fiduciary liability exposure.
I tell my clients that whenever considering potential investment options for a pension plan or a trust, use this simple two question test:
1. Does ERISA or any other law expressly require you to include the specific investment in the plan/trust?
2. Would/Could the inclusion of the investment potentially expose you and the plan/trust to unnecessary fiduciary liability exposure?
I have been receiving calls and emails telling me that some annuity agents have been telling plan sponsors that SECURE and/or SECURE 2.0 require them to include annuities in their plans. Simply not true. I have told my clients to actually recite the two question test to any annuity agent. FYI – with regard to annuities, the answers are “no” to question number one, and “yes” to question number two.
Plan participants that want to invest in an annuity are obviously free to do so – outside the plan where there would be no potential fiduciary liability issues for a plan sponsor.
Many plan sponsors unnecessarily expose themselves to fiduciary liability exposure because they do not truly understand their fiduciary duties under ERISA. ERISA does not require a plan sponsor to offer a specific investment simply because a plan participant would like to invest in the product. Again, they are free to open a personal account outside the plan and invest in any product they are interested in.
I predict significant changes in ERISA litigation over the next two years, as SCOTUS is called on to resolve the two remaining primary issues blocking a unified standard for determining 401(k)/403(b) litigation-the ‘apples and oranges” argument and the shifting the burden of proof on causation. The 1st Circuit, the Solicitor General and the DOL have already properly decided the issues. Now all that is left is for SCOTUS to officially endorse their arguments in order to guarantee plan participants the rights and protections promised them by ERISA.
1. Hughes v. Northwestern University, 42 S. Ct. 737 (2022)
2. Forman v. TriHealth, Inc., 40 F.4th 443 (2022). (TriHealth)
3. TriHealth, 453.
4. DOL Amicus Brief (DOL Brief), 2.
5. DOL Brief, 19.
6. DOL Brief, 21.
7. DOL Brief, 22.
8. DOL Brief, 10-11.
9. DOL Brief, 12-13.
10. DOL Brief, 13.
11. DOL Brief , 12-14.
12. Brotherston v. Putnam Investments, LLC, 907 F.3d 17, 38 (2018) (Brotherston)
13. Brotherston, 39.
14. DOL Brief, 15.
15. DOL Brief, 18.
16. DOL Brief, 18
17. Gregg v. Transportation Workers of America Int’l, 343 F.3d 833, 841-42 (2003). (Gregg)
17. Gregg, 841-42 (2003).
Copyright InvestSense, LLC 2023. All rights reserved.
This article is for informational purposes only, and is neither designed nor intended to provide legal, investment, or other professional advice since such advice always requires consideration of individual circumstances. If legal, investment, or other professional assistance is needed, the services of an attorney or other professional advisor should be sought.