High court hears case of lost 401(k) funds
Lawyer Blogs
Although U.S. workers can invest money in a retirement fund sponsored by their employer, it is not clear whether they can sue to recover money lost because of mistakes by the fund's administrator.
That issue came before the Supreme Court on Monday in a case that could shape the pension rights of 70 million employees.
The case began when James LaRue, a management consultant from Texas, said he lost $150,000 from his 401(k) retirement account when the plan's administrators ignored his instructions to move his money from a high-risk stock fund into government bonds in 2001. LaRue sued his employer, DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, but his claim was thrown out before a trial because, according to the lower courts, the federal law governing pensions and benefits does not allow individuals to sue over losses in their retirement accounts.
His case prompted the high court to reexamine the federal pension law in an era when employees -- not their employers -- are responsible for deciding where their retirement funds will be invested.
In 1974, Congress adopted federal rules for employer-sponsored pension funds and health benefits in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In the decades since, the high court has interpreted this worker-protection law to bar employees from suing their employers over benefit claims. For example, the court said employees and their families could not sue for damages if their healthcare plan refused to pay for a needed medical treatment.
During Monday's oral argument, the justices seemed divided over whether to allow employees like LaRue to sue over losses in their retirement funds.
Under the 1974 law, the sponsors for a pension plan who breach its trust can be sued and forced to pay for "any losses to the plan." But the lawyer for LaRue's employer said that did not refer to individual claims. It refers to "something systemic, something that affects the interests of the plan as a whole rather than just one individual participant," said Thomas Gies.
He and other business lawyers warned that opening the door to lawsuits over investment losses could prove very costly to employers -- and could even encourage some of them to drop their retirement plans.
Bush administration lawyers joined the case on the side of LaRue. They said the 1974 law was intended to protect the pensions of workers. "It is thus hard to imagine that Congress would have left participants and beneficiaries who have been injured by a breach of [trust] duties without any effective federal remedy," said U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement in his brief to the court.
A huge sum of money is potentially at issue, Clement noted. In the first quarter of this year, so-called defined contribution plans, to which employees contribute their own money, held about $3.3 trillion in assets, according to the Federal Reserve Board.
Representing LaRue was Peter K. Stris, a law professor at Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa. He said the "plain text" of the 1974 law allows suits when trustees breach their duty, and that is what occurred in this case. This is "a make-whole remedy for . . . losses that are caused by a breach of trust," he said, not an open-ended claim for damages against the employer.
While Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia seemed skeptical of LaRue's right to sue, Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer appeared equally skeptical of his employer's claim that no lawsuits are allowed.
And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who usually casts the deciding vote when the court is closely split, was uncharacteristically quiet during the hourlong argument.
Related listings
-
Court to Consider Investor's 401(k) Suit
Lawyer Blogs 11/26/2007[##_1L|1246883497.jpg|width="127" height="85" alt=""|_##]James LaRue says he lost $150,000 when his instructions to his employer on where to invest money in his retirement plan were ignored. Now the Supreme Court will decide whether a federal pension...
-
Court Declines Mich. Faith-Based Case
Lawyer Blogs 11/26/2007[##_1L|1014689179.jpg|width="120" height="101" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court on Monday declined to get involved in a dispute between Michigan officials and a faith-based program for troubled youths. The Michigan Family Independence Agency imposed a mo...
-
Family of alleged Bulger victim to get day in court
Lawyer Blogs 11/26/2007Another family of a man allegedly ordered killed by Whitey Bulger may be able to win damages against the FBI without going through a trial.On February 19, U.S. District Court Judge Reginald Lindsay will consider a motion for summary judgment by the w...
Victorville CA DUI defense Attorneys
The outcome of a DUI defense will have a long-term effect on anyone’s life, making the decision to receive legal representation an easy one. The fact is, most people accused of a DUI are first offenders with no criminal background. Whether this is your first run in with the law or you have had previous convictions, you are in need of a DUI defense attorney.
The charges you are facing for a DUI range from fines, a 12-month suspension on your license and worst-case scenario, prison time. Your attorney will be able to analyze your situation to decide the best way to go about your case.
Our attorneys know the tricky ways to challenge all of the DUI tests and know how to claim improper collection of evidence. We will be able to negotiate on your behalf and free you from charges and help you keep your drivers license. The DUI process can last up to several months, we can make this process easier on you. .