Singh v. Deloitte LLP, 123f4th88

Plaintiffs, participants in Deloitte LLP's 401(k) retirement plan, filed a class action against plan fiduciaries for alleged breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA related to allegedly excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees.
The Plan was a large ("jumbo") defined contribution plan, with over $4 billion in assets and tens of thousands of participants during 2015-2019.
Plaintiffs claimed the Plan's fees were higher than comparable plans and that fiduciaries failed to negotiate lower rates and conduct reasonable fee benchmarking.
The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of plausibility, holding that plaintiffs failed to specify what services the Plan or comparators received, and the cost comparisons were not "apples to apples."
Plaintiffs amended their complaint with added comparator data and expert support but the district court found the amendments futile and denied further leave to amend.
The Second Circuit reviewed the denial de novo and affirmed, finding the complaint still lacked necessary factual context on services provided for fee comparisons to plausibly allege imprudence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty of Prudence: Excessive Fees	Plan paid excessive fees compared to similarly-sized plans; same suite of services should mean lower cost.	Fee comparison was improper; plaintiffs didn't show comparability of services and cost/fee structure.	Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege breach by showing excessiveness relative to services; affirmed dismissal.
Sufficiency of Factual Allegations – Comparability	All national recordkeepers offer the same essential services regardless of plan choice; differences in services are minor.	Plaintiffs didn't specifically allege what services were provided to the Plan or comparators, nor quality/quantity.	Direct cost comparison without context of services is insufficient; specific factual context is required.
Apples-to-Apples Comparison Requirement	Plaintiffs' comparators are useful benchmarks; price differences cannot be attributed to service variance.	Only direct costs compared; indirect (revenue sharing) costs omitted, so the comparisons aren't apt.	Failure to compare total costs between plans limits plausibility; affirmed district court.
Reliance on Expert Declaration at Pleadings Stage	Plaintiffs' expert declaration supports service comparability and market rates.	Declaration is conclusory and cannot cure factual deficiency at pleading stage.	Expert opinion can't substitute for factual context; district court did not err in discounting it.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards require plausible, non-conclusory factual allegations)
Tibble v. Edison Int'l, 575 U.S. 523 (ERISA fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor plan investments)
Hughes v. Northwestern Univ., 595 U.S. 170 (ERISA prudence inquiry is context specific and must account for range of reasonable fiduciary judgments)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaints must cross threshold of plausibility, not mere possibility)
Sacerdote v. New York Univ., 9 F.4th 95 (factual allegations are taken as true, but plausibility is still required for ERISA breach claims)
Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. ex rel. St. Vincent Catholic Med. Centers Ret. Plan v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 712 F.3d 705 (context-specific scrutiny of ERISA prudence pleadings)
Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Mgmt., 694 F.2d 923 (excessive fee claims must relate fees to services rendered)
Matousek v. MidAmerican Energy Co., 51 F.4th 274 (meaningful benchmarks for claim plausibility require comparability of funds/services)