United States Ninth Circuit

District court's judgment in a class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by plaintiff beneficiaries who alleged that their pension plan was managed imprudently and in a self-interested fashion, is affirmed, where: 1) the district court correctly measured the timeliness of claims alleging imprudence in plan design from when the decision to include those investments in the plan was initially made; 2) mere notification that retail funds were in the Plan menu falls short of providing actual knowledge of the breach or violation; 3) because DOL's interpretation of how the safe harbor functions is consistent with the statutory language, the district court properly decided that section ERISA section 404(c) did not preclude merits consideration of beneficiaries' claims; 4) the revenue sharing as carried out by defendants does not violate ERISA; 5) defendants did not violate their duty of prudence under ERISA by including in the plan menu mutual funds, and a unitized fund for employees' investment in the company's stock; and 5) defendants were imprudent in deciding to include retail-class shares of three specific mutual funds in the plan menu because they failed to investigate the possibility of institutional-share class alternatives.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/21/2013
• Published 03/21/2013

Judges

• O’SCANNLAIN

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel