Investment Fee Allegations Fall Flat
However, the judge was unconvinced by allegations surrounding investment management fees. The complaint cited only one lower-cost fund to challenge the costliness of Froedtert’s offerings—an approach that didn’t cut it.
“The complaint needed more than just one fund; it needed a range of comparators and more details about their characteristics,” Pepper noted.
Without this comparative context, the court found no substantial basis to support the claim that Froedtert acted imprudently with regard to its investment offerings.
Other Claims Dismissed, But Some Monitoring Allegations Remain
While Judge Pepper tossed claims for injunctive relief—ruling that Bangalore, as a former participant, lacked standing—she allowed failure-to-monitor claims tied to the recordkeeping allegations to proceed. However, monitoring claims related to the dismissed investment fee arguments were removed.
The judge’s decision trims the scope of the case but leaves Froedtert’s plan fiduciaries exposed to significant scrutiny over how they managed the administrative costs of the plan.
