Class Members in an ERISA class action against MFS Investment Management secured a $6.9 million settlement with who claimed the company mismanaged their retirement savings. The Plaintiffs in the Class Action alleged that MFS breached its fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions.
According to the settlement proposal, the $6.9 million amount represents about 30% of the damages the workers could recover if they were to prove liability and maximum damages on all of their claims. The result is impressive both for dollar amount per class member (about $2,291) and the percentage of the plan’s assets (about .72%) it represents.
The pact also requires MSF to make the qualified default investment alternative for the plan a non-proprietary fund for at least three years following the settlement, and the company will also have to retain an unaffiliated third-party investment consultant to evaluate the plan’s lineup every year over the same period.
The proposed class has roughly 3,000 members based on information that was provided by MFS.
The case is Velazquez v. Massachusetts Financial Services Company et al., case number 1:17-cv-11249, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.
A New York federal judge confirmed that 16,000 Foot Locker pension plan members were entitled to $290 million in benefits following a successful challenge to a cut in their plan. The judge entered an amended final judgment in the long-running case after the U.S. Supreme Court in February denied Foot Locker’s petition, confirming that the retailer must pay $290 million to its pension plan members in the long running Employee Retirement Income Security Act case. Continue reading “Foot Locker Pension Plan Members Recover $290 Million in ERISA Class Action”
In 2006, former employees of Price Waterhouse filed a putative class action alleging that when they were paid a lump sum distribution of their benefits under Price Waterhouse’s retirement benefit plan before age 65, Price Waterhouse’s calculations didn’t meet Employee Retirement Income Security Act standards.