Treasury and DOL Guidance Bolster WPP’s Defense
Judge Koeltl cited U.S. Treasury Department regulations and a recent U.S. Department of Labor amicus brief that both support employers using forfeitures to fund contributions — a practice recognized across the retirement plan industry.
“The plaintiffs never square their theory with these congressional and agency sources,” Koeltl added, underscoring that WPP’s conduct was well within permissible boundaries.
Some Claims Dismissed With Leave to Amend
While the judge dismissed the fiduciary duty of loyalty and prohibited transaction claims with prejudice, he granted the plaintiffs a narrow opportunity to amend allegations tied to prudence and failure to monitor, giving them 21 days to file a revised complaint.
The case reflects a growing trend of ERISA forfeiture suits emerging in federal courts — many of which have been dismissed as courts defer to federal guidance allowing employers to reallocate unvested funds.
Legal Teams Behind the Case
The proposed class is represented by Andrew K. Glenn of Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes LLP and Tulio D. Chirinos of Chirinos Law Firm PLLC.
WPP Group USA Inc., the American arm of London-based advertising and marketing powerhouse WPP, is defended by William J. Delany, Lars C. Golumbic, Mark C. Nielsen, and Theodore A. Van Beek of Groom Law Group Chtd.
Neither side immediately responded to requests for comment Monday.
With Judge Koeltl’s decision, WPP becomes the latest company to fend off claims over 401(k) forfeiture handling, reaffirming how courts are interpreting ERISA’s boundaries in an era of heightened scrutiny over retirement plan management.
