Even though the allegations may be sound, the conclusions may not be supported with the sufficient facts “to infer that the fiduciaries had breached their fiduciary duties.”
Though the plaintiffs have until September 30th to amend the complaint, such is the recent case, White Vs. Chevron Corp.
The plaintiffs argued:
. the wrong types of investments were offered rather than “others” (they offered investments with higher expenses/expense rations while similar investments were available with lower expense/expense ratios) . there were revenue sharing relationships based on AUM (as the plan grows, the charges increase) instead of a per participant basis . failure of oversight (a poor performing investment option should have been removed earlier)
These are all sound reasons that cause “suspicions or inferences of fiduciary breaches” but none are demonstrative that one has occurred. Conclusive evidence must be provided as to how these allegations prove that the participant’s interest didn’t come first in content and oversight.
This story exemplifies the reasons why Attorneys need someone with experience in Portfolio Construction, Financial Technology/Analytics, and Legal Application expertise to support their allegations.