Yes, I Can Sue My 401(k) Administrator
Post viewed 773 times, 4 so far today
According to a NY Times article (registration required) yesterday, the US Supreme Court has ruled on February 20th that workplace retirement plan participants can sue the plan administrator to recover their losses under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The case, LaRue vs. DeWolff 06-856, is filed by James LaRue of Southlake, Texas, who in the lawsuit claimed that “the value of his stock market holdings plunged $150,000 when administrators at his retirement plan failed to follow his instructions to switch to safer investments.”
In the ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said that such lawsuits are allowed:
Fiduciary misconduct need not threaten the solvency of the entire plan to reduce benefits below the amount that participants would otherwise receive.
Is this a good news? Maybe, but I am not sure how much I can blame my 401(k) administrator for any loss of my investment because I myself manage what to invest. Seriously, a loss of $150,000 in a 401(k) plan is not going to happen over night. I wonder what that guy was doing when his account was shrinking.
Update: From the lawsuit:
Petitioner alleged that in 2001 and 2002 he directed DeWolff to make certain changes to the investments in his individual account, but DeWolff never carried out these directions. Petitioner claimed that this omission “depleted” his interest in the Plan by approximately $150,000, and amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.
*Photo from Wiihaveaproblem.com
If you enjoyed reading this post, please consider subscribing to my full RSS feed (What's RSS feed?). Or you can also choose to have free daily updates delivered right to your inbox.
Featured Financial Products
- Get the most out of your money with these online banks that pay top interest rates: EverBank: 4.75% APY, FNBO Direct: 3.50% APY, WTDirect: 3.31% APY.
- Feeling the pain at the pump? Find out how you can get up to 5% cash back with these gas rewards credit cards. It's the money you have to spend anyway. Why not get some back?
Related Articles You Don't Want To Miss
- Market Downturn Taking a Toll on Our 401(k)s
- Do You Have A Hot Job?
- Posts I Enjoyed Last Week
- Reader Question: What to Do if a Bear Market is Coming?
- Weekend Linkage - January 6, 2007
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Pingback by Leaving My Job And Pursuing My Dreams Too…This Week! @ The Roundup on February 24, 2008 @ 11:01 am
- Pingback by Weekend Links - Napa Treat Edition on February 24, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
7 Comments
Share Your Thouhgts
Your opinion matters. Please use the form below to share your thoughts on Yes, I Can Sue My 401(k) Administrator with us.Recent Entries
- 2008 4-Week T-Bill Rate Update
- A Quick Look at Lanzhou, China
- ING Direct Lowered Orange Savings Account Rate to 2.75% APY
- FICO Credit Scores 20% off Sale
- Fed Lowered Interest Rate in an Attempt to Halt Stock Market Free-fall
- Stocks Saved the Worst for the Last, Closing at 5-Year Low
- Why Doesn’t My Credit Score Increase When I Pay My Bills on Time?
- Tasty Hot Pot
- Is Gold a Good Choice to Hedge against Inflation?
- Ebates $10 Referral Bonus
- TradeKing Promotion: Get $50 Bonus in October
- What Zecco Has Done to Improve Their Service: An Interview with Zecco Trading
- Dow Jones Posts Largest Point Drop Ever
- Washington Mutual’s Failure Hurts Some Mutual Fund Investors
- Zecco Gives Unlimited Free Trades in October
- I Lost $250 on WaMu
- Another Historical Moment
- The Market is Plummeting? – No Worries
- A Long Day Yesterday
- Going on Vacation
- WaMu Online Savings Account Now 4.00% APY
- Keep My Money Safe and Let It Grow
- Weekend Linkage - September 21, 2008
- Chinese Stocks Surged as Government Came to Rescue
- U.S. Treasury to Guarantee Money-Market Funds







Hard to say what the details of the case are. All the articles are rather generic — only that the employer failed to implement to strategy he had selected. I remember reading an article stating LaRue submitted a fund switch request but didn’t check on whether it the plan administrator actually went through with the request until much later after a major loss was realized. The employer’s position was that was up to employees to confirm transactions and they are not responsible for mistakes they make on behalf of employees — only for outright fraud against the plan.
I agree that everyone shouldn’t be jumping up and down about this ruling. The ruling simply allows a person to sue over fiduciary misconduct as listed in teh ERIS, which essentially means that if i say to execute an order and my fund manager doesn’t do it, then i can sue. it doesn’t mean that if my fund tanks without having provided any further instruction that i can sue.
The ruling also isn’t a decision in favor of LaRue’s actual claim against Dewolff. He’ll still have to sue Dewolff again for the losses and prove that the Dewolff had acted out of misconduct.
i think the ruling is pretty narrow and doesn’t open the flood doors for lawsuits if funds start tanking.
He directed his plan to make several changes that they failed to do. They should be liable.
I do wonder though about how broad “directed plan” covers. I am the trustee for my company’s 401K plan and we use a vendor that does everything online. If the website didn’t work, am I liable for technology failures by our 401K vendor? Or perhaps the user didn’t make any such election, how would I prove they did not? (Can’t prove a negative as they say…)
I will have to ponder this some more.