Investment Monitoring, Post Supreme Court Decision

As mentioned in "ERISA Litigation and Investment Monitoring" (October 22, 2015), Dr. Susan Mangiero, Attorney James Fleckner and Dr. Lee Heavner will discuss economic and governance ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court "Tibble" decision on December 3, 2015 from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm EST.

To register for this educational webinar entitled "Life After Tibble: Investment Monitoring and Litigation Defense Considerations for ERISA Fiduciaries," click here. The sponsor, Bloomberg BNA, has arranged for continuing legal education ("CLE") credits to be offered.

Educational objectives are listed below:

  • Identify the main tenets of the Tibble decision and understand the implications of likely future litigation and enforcement;
  • Distinguish investment monitoring done in-house or by third parties;
  • Discover preemptive measures for effective investment monitoring;
  • Learn how to mount a defense against lawsuits; and
  • Cover the components of economic damage estimates as part of an investment monitoring lawsuit or regulatory enforcement action.

Given the importance and relevance of the topic, there are numerous individuals who can benefit by attending this program such as:

  • Asset manager and financial service company attorneys;
  • Auditors;
  • Banks that sell to ERISA plans;
  • Corporate board members;
  • Corporate counsel;
  • ERISA fiduciaries;
  • ERISA fiduciary liability insurers;
  • ERISA litigators;
  • ERISA transactional attorneys;
  • Financial analysts;
  • Financial regulators;
  • Financial industry journalists;
  • Investment advisors and consultants;
  • Mutual fund directors;
  • ERISA plan policymakers; and
  • ERISA plan researchers.

ERISA Litigation and Investment Monitoring

Please save the date for an educational program entitled "Life After Tibble: Investment Monitoring and Litigation Defense Considerations for ERISA Fiduciaries." Produced by Bloomberg BNA, this webinar event will take place on December 3, 2015. Speakers are listed below:

  • James O. Fleckner, Esquire - Chair - ERISA Litigation, Goodwin Procter LLP;
  • Dr. D. Lee Heavner - Managing Principal, Analysis Group, Inc.; and
  • Dr. Susan Mangiero - Managing Director, Fiduciary Leadership, LLC.

In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court "Tibble" decision, there are numerous questions as to what exactly comprises effective investment monitoring from a procedural prudence perspective. Given the newness of this important legal decision and little formal guidance from the High Court, the panel will present economic perspectives about what ERISA fiduciaries should do to assess, and possibly improve, their current investment monitoring process. Attention will be paid to related topics that include the delegation of investment monitoring to third parties (such as advisors, asset managers and consultants) and the kinds of information that should be communicated to plan participants about investment monitoring activities. The role of the economic expert and the factors that need to be considered in estimating damages will be addressed, along with a discussion of available industry resources. The panel will use examples from casework to illustrate some of the key points.

Further details will be posted shortly.

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."

ERISA Litigation Conference Addresses Timely Fiduciary Issues

Dr. Susan Mangiero announces the sponsorship of a forthcoming conference about ERISA litigation and regulatory issues by Fiduciary Leadership, LLC. Produced by the American Conference Institute ("ACI"), this mid-April event pairs attorneys (including corporate counsel) with jurists to address timely topics that include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Excessive fees;
  • Church plan lawsuits;
  • Fiduciary liability insurance;
  • Use of independent fiduciaries;
  • Enforcement risk;
  • Ethics;
  • Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") litigation;
  • Proceedings related to company stock in ERISA plans; and
  • Health care mandates and related compliance.

Interested readers of www.goodriskgovernancepays.com or www.pensionriskmatters.com can read more about the program, speakers and venue by downloading the ERISA litigation conference brochure. There is a $200 discount off the current price for any blog reader who calls 888-224-2480 or visits http://www.americanconference.com/ERISA.

I look forward to seeing you in the Windy City in a few weeks. With the just announced push by the White House for fiduciary conflict of interest rules, U.S. Supreme Court activity in Tibble v. Edison International and news of multi-million ERISA litigation settlements, this conference is expected to be informative and important.

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.

Making Bets on U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

If I ever earn a spot on a game show like Jeopardy, answering questions about sports will be a challenge. I recognize that, unlike me, there are serious fans who spend more than a few hours each week, vetting all sorts of statistics and data points about what team is likely to win and by how much. At family gatherings, I hear nephews and in-laws waxing poetic about games such as Fantasy Football. According to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association ("FSTA"), only skilled parties need apply, adding that there is no gambling.

Big money is at stake. According to "Industry Demographics: At A Glance," nearly 34 million individuals, mostly men, played fantasy sports in the United States in 2013. Canada counts roughly 3.1 million fantasy sports players. Over a twelve month period, aggregate league fees for fantasy games tallied $1.71 billion. For information materials, the spend was $656 million. It was $492 million for challenge games. (For us neophytes, what is a challenge game?) Decade-long performance reflects "explosive absolute growth" of 241 percent or an annualized growth rate of 13.1 percent for 2008 through 2018. See "Top 10 Fastest Growing Industries" (April 2013).

So here I am, sitting at my computer, researching certain ERISA litigation matters, and lo and behold, what do I find? You guessed it - FantasySCOTUS. According to its dedicated website, over 20,000 lawyers, law students and "other avid Supreme Court followers" have opined as to how they believe cases will be decided. Click to view a short video about this Harlan Institute initiative.

For those who are waiting with bated breath for commentary about stock drop cases, fear not. Of 53 predictions, as of today, 23 votes are for affirmation by the U.S. Supreme Court and 30 votes are for reversal. There is even a breakdown of votes as to how each justice is expected to respond to the April 2, 2014 hearing about prudence. Click to check out the Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer roster of votes. Click here to download a transcript of the hearing.

What will they think of next?

Fifth Third Bancorp v John Dudenhoeffer

For those unable to attend the April 2, 2014 U.S. Supreme Court hearing, a review of the transcript of Fifth Third Bancorp et al v. John Dudenhoeffer et al (No. 12-751) may be of interest. Appearances were made by Robert A. Long, Esquire and partner with Covington & Burling LLP (on behalf of Petitioners), Ronald Mann, Esquire and Albert E. Cinelli Enterprise Professor of Law with the Columbia Law School (on behalf of Respondents) and Edwin S. Kneedler, Esquire, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondents.)

I will leave the legal interpretation to attorneys. The bullet points shown below are excerpted from the transcript and by no means reflect the totality of today's discussion. No doubt we will soon get insights from practicing attorneys who can properly parse the legal issues, ahead of a formal opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court bench.

From my perspective as an economist, I think it is always good whenever further guidance is provided about the important role of the ERISA fiduciary. Notwithstanding this notion of "more is better" in terms of shedding light on fiduciary duties, I envision a kerfuffle as it relates to the discussion about stock valuation. Encouraging the use of an independent appraiser makes sense. However, the valuation community has already been vocal about its fears that an expanded fiduciary standard could increase its liability and thereby cause some firms to exit the market and push up the price of an appraisal as a result. As an aside, during her April 1, 2014 presentation before Practising Law Institute pension plan investment workshop attendees, Counsel for Appellate and Special Litigation, Elizabeth Hopkins mentioned that ESOP enforcement continues to be an active area for the U.S. Department of Labor, with a particular emphasis on the valuation of company stock.

  • There were several questions about what constitutes "prudence," along with comments about the value of a stock that is issued by the plan sponsor and related disclosure requirements if the price of said stock is deemed to be "overvalued".
  • Throughout the proceeding, there were questions and comments about ERISA versus SEC Rule 10b-5 with respect to the use of information known by company executives.
  • Justice Kennedy asked about the landscape relating to the use of an independent fiduciary. Attorney Long commented that not all problems would be solved that way since "you'd have to have a monitoring trustee who would have to give the independent trustee any inside information that they had."
  • Justice Alito asked if an ERISA fiduciary can "take into account the interests of the participants as employees as opposed to their interests as investors" and offered that "It doesn't seem to me that those will necessarily be the same. And there may be situations in which something that would be potentially good for the participants as investors would be quite bad for them as employees." For example, individuals could lose their jobs if decision-makers for an Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") stop buying company stock and this signal possibly leads to "bankruptcy and liquidation for the company."
  • Attorney Mann started to address what he called a "rock and a hard place" issue. Various justices commented thereafter, asking what a fiduciary is supposed to do when they have information about a stock. His reply was that, similar to a "corporate context where directors ordinarily are protected by the business judgment rule, if a situation arises in which their interests patently diverge from the interests of the shareholders, they don't simply decide to represent both interests but pick one over the over. They instead step aside and appoint...allow independent people to represent the shareholders."
  • Justice Kennedy asked Attorney Mann how he would write a statute to promote employee ownership of company stock.
  • Attorney Kneedler began his comments with a reference to Section 1104 and the focus of "operating the plan for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries, which means the interests of employees are taken into account only insofar as they are participants in the plan, not more generally." He agreed with Justice Sotomayor that a "stock drop in and of itself" is not necessarily proof of poor procedural prudence. He added that "fiduciaries have an obligation to actually exercise their discretion and actually investigate...monitoring of the ... investment."
  • Justice Breyer inquired about the materiality issue, i.e. how much "in assets is accounted for by the ownership" of company stock by an ERISA plan.
  • Subsequent questions and comments focused on the notion of selling existing positions of company stock versus not buying anymore when material information suggests that the stock is expensive relative to its intrinsic worth.
  • When the podium returned to Attorney Long, he stated that "There is no circuit split on the issue that we've spent all our time discussing this morning. The only circuit split is on whether this presumption applies at the motion to dismiss stage." He cited the intent of Congress to encourage company ownership and suggested that rendering ESOPs "unworkable" would "basically cause many companies to say we can't put fiduciaries in that situation, so we're not going to have ESOPs at all."

The case was submitted at 11:30 a.m. Click here to download the Fifth Third Bancorp v. John Dudenhoeffer hearing transcript.