Certain 401k plan participants with Edward Jones have challenged the firm’s recommendations. The participants filed a lawsuit against the firm, claiming that the retirement classes of mutual funds should have been replaced with lower-cost classes that were less risky. It was also alleged that Edward Jones breached its fiduciary duty by neglecting to negotiate a lower-cost fee arrangement with Mercer HR Services for its administrative costs. Edward Jones then filed a lawsuit to dismiss, and claimed that the plan participants failed to properly state a claim, and failed to show that the fiduciary’s decision was based on making a profit, rather than a legitimate claim. District Judge Ross stated that the plan participants included plenty of details to claim the company used risky and costly funds in the plan, and so denied Edward Jones’ Motion to Dismiss in the pending lawsuit. The judge also claimed that the firm failed to prudently monitor and control compensation to Mercer when its fees tripled.
Disclaimer
The posting on this site are mere OPINIONS and NOT statements of fact in any way whatsoever. The information should not be relied upon and there have been no findings made against the firms or individuals referenced on this site. In addition, this Blog is made available for educational purposes only and incorporates information from the web as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and Stoltmann Law Offices (161 N Clark Street 16th Floor Chicago, IL 60601). The Blog opinions should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS ADVERTISING AND IT IS NOT A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE OR POST FROM AN INDEPENDENT OR NON-BIASED, NEWS SITE, NEWS SOURCE OR NEWSPAPER.
