Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Supreme Court Won’t Review Key ERISA Case: A Boost for Index Funds?
April 13, 2020
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of a case in which Putnam Investments is alleged by plan participants to have breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA by automatically including higher-cost, actively managed Putnam mutual funds as investment options for the company’s 401(k) plan and then not monitoring the performance of those funds.

This leaves intact the First Circuit’s holding in Brotherston v. Putnam Investments LLC that comparisons of investment performance against low-cost, passively managed benchmark or index funds can support a finding of loss in cases alleging the imprudent selection of actively managed mutual funds as plan investment options. It also lets stand the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on which party bears the burden of proof on causation, notwithstanding a split of authority in the circuit courts. In Brotherston, the First Circuit had joined the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits in holding that “once an ERISA plaintiff has shown a breach of fiduciary duty and loss to the plan, the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove that such loss was not caused by its breach.”

In its petition for certiorari, Putnam argued that the First Circuit’s holding on the use of index fund comparisons to show loss effectively “makes loss a foregone conclusion in every case challenging the funds offered in a 401(k) or 403(b) plan line-up” and that this would foment litigation and force a universal shift to index funds by plan sponsors. This could be, but remains to be seen. In remanding to the district court, the First Circuit made clear not only that the district court had yet to definitively decide whether Putnam breached its duty of prudence, but also that Putnam could still rebut the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ evidence of loss as a factual matter. So Putnam may yet prevail at trial or on further appeal.
Authored By
Image: Edmund J. Zaharewicz
Edmund J. Zaharewicz
Related Practices
Financial Services Regulatory ERISA Employee Benefit Plan Litigation
Related Industries
Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions Securities & Investment Companies
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.