Cunningham is likely to usher in a new wave of ERISA litigation. Law firms now have a roadmap to file viable lawsuits with minimal pleading requirements. Participants may be more willing to challenge fee structures, fund options, or vendor relationships—especially when retirement balances don’t grow as expected. We may also see:– More settlements to avoid…
ERISA lawsuits don’t award emotional distress or punitive damages. Instead, the focus is on restoring financial losses to the retirement plan. If a plaintiff proves that fiduciaries allowed excessive fees, used underperforming funds, or made self-interested decisions, the court may order the fiduciaries to reimburse the plan. That money goes back into the plan—not directly…
The Cunningham decision affects a huge segment of the U.S. economy. There are roughly 710,000 retirement plans covered under ERISA. The vast majority use third-party vendors—recordkeepers, investment platforms, custodians, or advisors. If even half of these plans engaged with a “party in interest” through payment of any fee, more than 350,000 plan sponsors could technically…
Even if a company has good intentions, certain fiduciary mistakes can lead to costly ERISA litigation. Here are a few examples, drawn from real-world cases: 1. Overpaying for Services: Hiring a vendor that charges significantly more than market rates—without documenting why—can raise red flags. 2. Limited Investment Options: Offering employees only a handful of poorly…
Once a lawsuit passes the motion to dismiss, it enters discovery—a costly and time-consuming process. Here’s what plan sponsors may have to produce:– Service agreements with third-party administrators and investment firms– Fee schedules, payment records, and invoices– Benchmarking data comparing vendor fees to industry standards– Internal emails, meeting notes, and board minutes discussing vendor selection–…
One of the most important features of ERISA is who it protects—and after Cunningham, the pool of potential plaintiffs is wide. Current employees are obvious candidates. But ERISA also gives legal standing to former employees, retirees, and anyone else who is or was a participant in the plan with a vested interest. You don’t need…
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Cunningham, the answer is: yes, hiring a third-party 401(k) service provider—if not documented and benchmarked appropriately—can expose a company to litigation. Let’s be clear: the lawsuit itself may not be about whether the provider performed poorly or charged too much. It may simply focus on the fact that the…
Prior to Cunningham v. Cornell, many ERISA lawsuits were dismissed early for failing to allege that fees paid by the plan were unreasonably high. But the Supreme Court’s ruling changed that. Now, if a retirement plan pays any amount to a vendor that qualifies as a “party in interest,” a lawsuit can proceed—even without claims…
What Is the Cunningham v. Cornell Case and Why It Matters? In April 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of Cunningham v. Cornell University. The Court’s opinion has sent ripples through the retirement plan industry, fundamentally changing how courts interpret fiduciary responsibility under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act…