Yes, I Can Sue My 401(k) Administrator

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.