FOLLOW US

A class of PPL Corp. employees is turning up the pressure in a long-simmering legal battle, asking a federal judge to grant final approval to an $8.2 million settlement in a lawsuit accusing the Pennsylvania-based energy titan of mishandling their retirement savings. The motion, filed Monday before U.S. District Judge Mia Roberts Perez, signals the potential conclusion of a dispute that has spotlighted alleged breaches of fiduciary duty within the company’s 401(k) plan.

"Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable": Plaintiffs Push for Closure

Describing the agreement as “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable,” the plaintiffs’ motion asserts that the proposed deal serves the best interests of the class — a group composed of current and former participants in PPL’s retirement plan. In a key show of unity, not a single class member has objected to the terms, nor to requests for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, or representative awards.

“No class member has objected,” the motion states, marking a rare moment of collective agreement in a case that spans years of litigation.

Allegations of Underperformance and Costly Choices

At the heart of the lawsuit lies the accusation that PPL Corp. breached its fiduciary responsibilities by keeping the underwhelming Northern Trust Focus Funds within its retirement portfolio—despite their lackluster performance. Adding fuel to the fire, plaintiffs claim the company also opted for higher-cost share classes when more affordable alternatives were available, potentially eroding employee returns over time.

The class alleges these choices weren’t just unfortunate—they were irresponsible, and failed the legal standards required for plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Legal Firepower on Both Sides

The plaintiffs are represented by an experienced team of ERISA litigators, including Jerome J. Schlichter, Troy A. Doles, Kurt C. Struckhoff, Chen Kasher, and Nathan D. Stump of Schlichter Bogard LLP, alongside David Promisloff of Promisloff Law PC.

PPL, for its part, has mounted a robust defense, enlisting attorneys Catalina J. Vergara, Kevin A. Kraft, Deanna M. Rice, William Pollak, and Scott Harman-Heath of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, as well as Peter H. LeVan Jr. of LeVan Law LLC.

Despite repeated requests, counsel for both sides declined to comment, leaving the public to await the judge’s ruling.

What Comes Next?

Judge Perez, who granted preliminary approval of the settlement back in April, now holds the gavel over whether this deal can finally put the matter to rest. If approved, the settlement will mark a significant resolution for PPL employees and a cautionary tale for corporate America about the high cost of retirement plan mismanagement.

As fiduciary scrutiny continues to intensify nationwide, this case underscores that workers aren’t just watching their portfolios—they’re ready to fight for them.