Portfolio &
Money Management

Resources

Contact Us

Headquarters:
4 Landmark Square
Suite 303
Stamford, CT 06901

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE INFORMATION   

 

ADV Part 2 | Privacy Policy | Cyber Security Policy | Business Continuity Plan | Client Secure Upload

 

 

Check the background of this firm on FINRA’s BrokerCheck.           

 

NS Capital LLC is a Registered Investment Adviser. NS Capital and its representatives are in compliance with the current filing requirements imposed upon registered investment advisers by those states in which NS Capital maintains clients. NS Capital may only transact business in those states in which it is registered, or qualifies for an exemption or exclusion from registration requirements. NS Capital’s web site is limited to the dissemination of general information pertaining to its advisory services, and through the NS Blog access to additional investment-related information, publications, and links.  Accordingly,  NS Capital’s web site on the Internet should not be construed by any consumer and/or prospective client as NS Capital’s solicitation to effect, or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or the rendering of personalized investment advice for compensation, over the Internet.  Any subsequent, direct communication by NS Capital with a prospective client shall be conducted by a representative that is either registered or qualifies for an exemption or exclusion from registration in the state where the prospective client resides. For information pertaining to the registration status of NS Capital, please contact the SEC or the state securities regulators for those states in which NS Capital maintains a notice filing.  A copy of NS Capital current written disclosure statement discussing NS Capital’s business operations, services, and fees is available from NS Capital upon written request. NS Capital does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, timeliness, suitability, completeness, or relevance of any information prepared by any unaffiliated third party, whether linked to NS Capital’s web site or incorporated herein, and takes no responsibility such content.  All such information is provided solely for convenience purposes only and all users should be guided accordingly.

 

Please remember that different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy (including those undertaken or recommended by NS Capital), will be profitable or equal any historical performance level(s).

 

Certain portions of NS Capital’s web site (i.e. newsletters, articles, commentaries, etc.) may contain a discussion of, and/or provide access to, NS Capital (and those of other investment professionals) positions and/or recommendations as of a specific prior date.  Due to various factors, including changing market conditions, such discussion may no longer be reflective of current position(s) and/or recommendation(s).  Moreover, no client or prospective client should assume that any such discussion serves as the receipt of, or a substitute for, personalized advice from NS Capital, or from any other investment professional. NS Capital is neither an attorney nor an accountant, and no portion of the web site content should be interpreted as legal, accounting or tax advice. 

 

Rankings and/or recognition by unaffiliated rating services and/or publications should not be construed by a client or prospective client as a guarantee that he/she will experience a certain level of results if NS Capital is engaged, or continues to be engaged, to provide investment advisory services, nor should it be construed as a current or past endorsement of NS Capital by any of its clients.  Rankings published by magazines, and others, generally base their selections exclusively on information prepared and/or submitted by the recognized adviser. Each client and prospective client agrees, as a condition precedent to his/her/its access to NS Capital web site, to release and hold harmless , NS Capital’s officers, directors, owners, employees and agents from any and all adverse consequences resulting from any of his/her/its actions and/or omissions which are independent of his/her/its receipt of personalized individual advice from NS Capital.

© 2020-2025 NS Capital LLC. All Rights Reserved.  

Tibble vs. Edison Plaintiffs Win the Latest Decision in District Court

August 17, 2017

https://www.plansponsor.com/tibble-vs-edison-plaintiffs-win-the-latest-decision-in-district-court/

 

The latest ruling in Tibble vs. Edison comes out of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, applying the now-famous “distinct duty to monitor” standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court on an appeal of the very same litigation.   

 

By way of background, the pioneering lawsuit has played out over the last full decade, filed first in the California district court and eventually reaching all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States after an appellate ruling.  

 

Readers of PLANSPONSOR will recall the Supreme Court’s decision was taken to establish clearly that the “ongoing duty to monitor” investments is a fiduciary duty that is separate and distinct from the duty to exercise prudence in the initial choice of an investment. The big practical result was that plan sponsors can no longer rely on ERISA’s statute of limitations to protect themselves from accusations of potentially imprudent investment decisions made in the past when the investment options in question persist on the menu to this day. However the SCOTUS decision declined to apply that determination to the facts of the case at hand, leaving the lower courts to put into practice the standard it had put forth.

 

Now that a new ruling has emerged it seems that the SCOTUS and appellate court instructions have led the district court to side with the plaintiffs, ruling that defendants breached their fiduciary obligations of prudence and monitoring in the selection of all 17 mutual funds at issue. Damages will be calculated from 2011 to the present, the decision states, “based not on the statutory rate, but by the 401(k) plan’s overall returns in this time period.”

 

The ruling examines in detail the process surrounding the adoption of 14 mutual funds that the plaintiffs contend should have been switched by the defendants from retail to institutional shares on August 16, 2001, the beginning of the statutory period. An additional three mutual funds in dispute had their institutional-class shares become available later, during the statutory period, and had no statute of limitations questions.

 

In the previous bench trial, the district court “rejected the contention that the defendant was justified in selecting the retail-class shares because these shares had more public information available, because participants would be confused by proposed changes in the switch from retail to institutional shares, or because the plan did not qualify for the investment minimum required of institutional share classes.” In the current case, the defendants do not revive these same arguments.

 

“Instead, they concede that they were in the wrong in not considering institutional shares,” the decision states. “They argue, however, that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary who did consider the institutional shares would have still invested in at least some of the retail share classes. Defendants assert that during collective bargaining negotiations between Edison and plan participants in 1999, the parties agreed—or, at least, understood—that Edison would invest in funds with revenue sharing in order to defray some of the recordkeeping costs Edison was paying Hewitt Associates.”

 

The defendants further contended that “the unions understood and accepted this bargain … Because the unions accepted this bargain, and because for most of the 17 funds at issue, fees charged to plan participants by the ‘retail’ class were the same as the fees charged by the ‘institutional’ class, net of the revenue sharing paid by the funds to defray the plan’s recordkeeping costs, defendants argue that investment in the retail share classes was prudent.”

 

 

On the duty of prudence, the plan sponsor argued it had a right to invest in the retail-class shares to take advantage of revenue sharing. But the court determined this argument “fails on its merits.”

“Defendants’ argument is that by informing plan participants that revenue sharing is available, the fiduciaries could then choose higher cost retail shares that had revenue sharing instead of the institutional shares that did not,” the decision explains. “This quid-pro-quo is not identified in any of the communications that defendants present to the court. Instead, the understanding seems to be simply that defendants could use revenue sharing it received to defray recordkeeping costs—this is most logically interpreted to mean that if a prudent investment has revenue sharing, then defendants are allowed to use these proceeds to defray recordkeeping costs instead of applying the proceeds to other possible uses (such as reinvesting that money into the plan). There is no indication that this understanding would allow the fiduciaries to choose otherwise imprudent investments specifically to take advantage of revenue sharing.”

 

The decision continues: “Defendants argue that in fact allowing Edison to take advantage of revenue sharing instead of investing in lower costs institutional-class shares was actually better for the plan participants, since in a hypothetical scenario in which Edison had no revenue sharing to defray recordkeeping costs it would have reallocated plan administrative costs to plan participants. Beyond the fact this argument is both pure speculation and belied by the court’s previous findings that defendants were not motivated by recouping revenue sharing in making investment decisions, the argument also requires the court to accept that a $1.1 million increase in recordkeeping costs would motivate Edison to restructure its Plan. The court is not convinced.”

 

On the duty to monitor questions, “the court does not suggest that in all duty to monitor cases a fiduciary would breach their duty the day a fund becomes imprudent. Certainly, reasonable fiduciaries are not expected to take a daily accounting of all investments, and thus the reasonable discovery of an imprudent investment may not occur until the systematic consideration of all investments at some regular interval … However, the facts of this particular case present an extreme situation. Defendants have never disputed that a reasonable fiduciary would be knowledgeable of the existence of the institutional shares for the mutual funds at issue. Thus, there is no credible argument that a reasonable fiduciary only would have discovered these share classes during some later annual review. Defendants always knew, or should have known, institutional share classes existed.”

 

Furthermore, the court says “there may be times when a reasonable fiduciary suspects an imprudent investment, but waits until she engages in a regularly scheduled systematic review to confirm her suspicion and properly reinvest the funds elsewhere. This is also not that sort of case.”

 

The plan sponsor's arguments have flatly failed, it seems, to persuade the district court. Following some lengthy analysis of the facts and the previous decisions in the case, the district court “concludes that defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary obligations and are liable beginning on August 16, 2001—or for three funds the later date institutional share classes become available—for the actual loss in excessive fees paid and for the lost investment opportunity of this breach.”

 

The decision and the method of calculating damages are further explained: “Defendants argued that once a prudent fiduciary decided to switch share classes, two to five months were necessary for the plan to actually make the switch. Defendant relies on the testimony from Diane Kobashigawa, Manager of Benefits Administration and Compliance for SCE from approximately January 1997 to February 2007. Kobashigawa stated there are several steps she understands Hewitt would take before switching share classes. She concluded that Hewitt would need two to five month to complete these steps, absent unusual circumstances. The court does not find Kobashigawa’s testimony persuasive. Beyond her specific testimony, the court notes there was no evidence that it would be more prudent for Hewitt to complete these tasks before switching share classes, and not after making the switch. As for her specific testimony, the court does not find it comports with other evidence in the record which shows that a change in share class can be accomplished in substantially less time and with the testimony of Dr. Witz that such a change could occur in a day.

 

“Further, as a breaching fiduciary, defendants would be liable in making plaintiffs whole regardless of how long it takes to cure the breach. Defendants are liable for any profits that the trust would have accrued in the absence of the breach … Absent this breach, the prudent investments would have been made immediately—either on August 16, 2001, or on the day after 2001 that institutional funds became available. Thus, even if defendants successfully showed it would take months to make the switch, they are nonetheless liable for losses on each mutual fund at issue either beginning on August 16, 2001, or on the day after 2001 that institutional funds became available.”

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Stay Informed
join our mailing list, and we'll share content with you every now and again.
Recent Posts

December 18, 2017

Please reload