Investment Fiduciary Monitoring, Economic Damages and Tibble

Following the publication of "An Economist's Perspective of Fiduciary Monitoring of Investments" by yours truly, Dr. Susan Mangiero (Pensions & Benefits Daily, May 26, 2015), I decided to write a second article on the topic as there is so much to say. This next article is co-authored with Dr. Lee Heavner (managing principal with the Analysis Group) and continues the discussion about investment monitoring from an economic viewpoint. Entitled "Economic Analysis in Fiduciary Monitoring Disputes Following the Supreme Court's 'Tibble' Ruling" (Pensions & Benefits Daily, June 24, 2015), we address the case-specific nature of investment monitoring by fiduciaries and the complexities of quantifying possible harm "but for" alleged imprudent monitoring.

Noting the discussion of changed circumstances by the High Court as part of its Tibble v. Edison International decision, it is imperative to understand that investment monitoring involves multiple steps, each of which takes a certain number of days to complete. "In the world of dispute resolutions, every complaint, expert report, and decision by a trier of fact is specific to a date or period of time. Time is no less a crucial variable with regard to the creation and implementation of an adequate investment monitoring program." While "changed circumstances" are likely to vary across plans and plan sponsors, exogenous events can spur further monitoring. "The departure of a key executive, a large loss, or a government investigation for malfeasance are a few of the events that may lead plan fiduciaries to subject an investment to enhanced scrutiny."

The expense of monitoring is another issue altogether, one that is nuanced, important and necessary to quantify. We point out that (a) there are different types of costs (b) expenses occur at different points in time and (c) some costs may be difficult to assess right away. "For example, when monitoring leads to a change in vendor or investment that in turn results in participant confusion, blackout dates, account errors, or a lengthy delay in setting up a new reporting system, the true costs may not be known until well after the transition is completed."

There are no freebies. There is a cost to taking action as the result of monitoring. There can be a cost to inaction as well. Investment selection and investment monitoring are different activities. Categories of investment monitoring costs include: (a) use of third parties (b) search costs (c) change costs and (d) opportunity costs. Any or all of these categories may come to bear in a calculation of "but for" economic damages. As a result, "there may be substantial variation to when prudent fiduciaries would act let alone how long it would take an investment committee to complete each action." An assessment of economic damages - whether for discovery, mediation, settlement or trial purposes - requires care, consideration and an understanding of the complex investment monitoring process.

For further insights and to read about this timely topic, download our article by clicking here.

ERISA Litigation Costs

After having just blogged about the April 13-14, 2015 American Conference Institute program about ERISA litigation in Chicago, it was somewhat coincidental that an article on the same topic crossed my desk today, painting a grim picture of what could happen to a plan sponsor in the event of a lawsuit.

While only two pages long, "An Ounce of Prevention: Top Ten Reasons to Have an ERISA Litigator on Speed Dial" invites readers to consider the advantages of staying abreast of increasingly complex rules and regulations as part of a holistic prescription for mitigating legal risk. Authors Nancy Ross and Brian Netter (both partners with Mayer Brown) cite "heightened interest" in ERISA by U.S. Supreme Court justices, a rise in U.S. Department of Labor enforcement and court decisions about the importance of having a prudent process. They add that de-risking compliance, disclosure requirements, conflicts of interest, large settlements and attorney-client privilege restrictions are other potential landmines for a public or private company that offers retirement benefits.

Elsewhere, Employee Benefit Adviser contributor, Paula Aven Gladych, predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court review of Tibble v. Edison International ("Tibble") could increase ERISA litigation risk for plan sponsors, regardless of its decision. In "Edison decision could be 'slippery slope' for plan fiduciaries" (February 26, 2015), she writes that "the court focused its attention on duty to monitor fees and investments, generally by investment committees and plan administrators of 401(k) plans." Interested readers can download the February 24 2015 Tibble hearing transcript.

Recent events reflect multi-million dollar resolutions, even when an ERISA litigation defendant feels strongly that it is in the right. In "Settlements offer lessons in breach suits" (Pensions & Investments, February 23, 2015), Robert Steyer reports that publicly available documents can shed light about what types of disputes are being settled, the dollar amounts involved and any non-monetary requests made by the plaintiffs. Competitive bidding as part of selecting a vendor is one example. He goes on to say that regulatory opinions are thought to be particularly helpful when they are viewed by the retirement industry as de facto guidance.

I will report back after attending the ERISA litigation conference in a few weeks although I suspect that judges, litigators and corporate counsel who speak will convey a similar message with respect to fiduciary scrutiny. As Bob Dylan sang, "the times they are a-changing."

U.S. Supreme Court and Tibble v Edison International

According to SCOTUSBLOG.com, Glenn Tibble, et al. v. Edison International, et al ("Tibble v Edison") is seeing continued action after a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on October 30, 2013 by counsel of record for the petitioners. Click here to download the 319 page document. On February 7, 2014, attorneys for respondents filed a brief in opposition. On March 3, petitioners' counsel filed a supplemental brief. Thereafter, on March 24 of this year, the Solicitor General was asked to file a brief in this ERISA fee case. That brief has now been filed and can be accessed by clicking here. (Thank you to Fiduciary Matters lead blogger, Attorney Thomas Clark, for sending the file.)

According to this 29-page "Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae," the Solicitor General, the Solicitor of Labor and others conclude that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted with respect to the question as to "[w]hether a claim that ERISA plan fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by offering higher-cost retail-class mutual funds to plan participants, even though identical lower-cost institutional-class mutual funds were available, is barred by 29 U.S.C. 1113(1) when fiduciaries initially chose the higher-cost mutual funds as plan investments more than six years before the claim was filed."

As an economist who leaves the legal issues for attorneys to vet, it seems that this filing opens the door to another review of ERISA matters by the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether that is good or bad, depends on your perspective. I would like to think that further discussions about fiduciary best practices by the highest U.S. court would be a positive outcome.