SIMS v. BB&T CORPORATION
1:15-cv-00732
M.D.N.C.Aug 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are current or former participants in the BB&T Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan who allege ERISA fiduciary breaches in selecting, administering, and monitoring plan investments and in incurring excessive fees.
- Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the Plan under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109(a) and 1132(a)(2), alleging plan-wide losses and prohibited transactions.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all current and former Plan participants and beneficiaries from Jan. 1, 2007 through judgment; proposed class size: ~30,000–67,000.
- Defendants opposed certification, arguing lack of commonality and typicality due to varying participant investment results, potential intra-class conflicts, and absence of individualized injury methodology.
- The court evaluated Rule 23(a) (numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and concluded the class met all requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class membership / ascertainability & numerosity | Class members are identifiable from Plan records; class is large (30k–67k) | No dispute | Granted — class members identifiable; numerosity satisfied |
| Rule 23(b)(1)(A) (risk of inconsistent adjudications) | Plan-wide claims create risk of inconsistent relief if litigated separately | Acknowledged that if 23(a) is satisfied, 23(b)(1) follows | Granted — risk of varying adjudications supports (b)(1)(A) class |
| Commonality (single or common questions of law/fact) | Common questions: fiduciary status, scope of duties, breaches, prohibited transactions, Plan losses and loss calculation | Argued intra-class conflicts because some participants profited from challenged funds and no agreed methodology for individual injury | Granted — common issues exist; speculative intra-class differences and individualized loss allocation do not defeat commonality for Plan-wide ERISA claims |
| Typicality & adequacy (representatives and counsel) | Named plaintiffs’ claims arise from same conduct and legal theories; proposed counsel qualified; both firms needed given complexity | Asserted representatives didn’t hold all challenged funds; some named plaintiffs lack detailed case knowledge; requested single firm for efficiency | Granted — typicality and adequacy satisfied; representatives need not have invested in every challenged fund; both firms appointed as class counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Tatum v. RJR Pension Inv. Comm., 761 F.3d 346 (4th Cir. 2014) (ERISA fiduciary duties and liability framework)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate Rule 23 compliance)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis required)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (typicality and commonality principles)
- Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2003) (intra-class conflict must be fundamental to defeat certification)
- Spano v. Boeing Co., 633 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussion of typicality in defined-contribution cases)
- Langbecker v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 476 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2007) (remand to assess intra-class conflicts where members gained and lost on challenged investments)
- Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998) (class members need not have identical factual claims; adequacy focus)