The court has dismissed this case on the contention that the plaintiffs’ charges lacked standing. Plan fiduciaries were accused of costing plaintiffs and the proposed class of plaintiffs – participants in the Delta Air Line’s Delta Family Care Savings Plan – millions of dollars due to excessive investment fees, when the Plan, given its “size and prominence in the marketplace”, had the ability to offer lower cost investment options. Plaintiffs did not allege that they were invested in the funds of issue, although they did contend that they could sue on behalf of the Plan despite not suffering personal injury. They claimed that a violation of ERISA rights alone constitutes an injury. The judge, however, ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims do not qualify, as the plaintiffs must have suffered an “injury in fact”, which requires that the injury be “concrete and particularized” and “actual, or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” It is insufficient to allege that offering a prohibitive investment damaged the plan and its participants.
www.planadviser.com; December 18, 2017.
www.napa-net.org; December 27, 2017.