Amazon.com Inc. and the administrative committee overseeing its 401(k) savings plan have been hit with a class-action lawsuit alleging improper management of employee forfeiture funds. The lawsuit, Curtis v. Amazon.com, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and claims Amazon’s fiduciaries engaged in self-dealing by using forfeited plan assets to reduce the company’s own contributions rather than lowering administrative fees for participants. As the legal battle unfolds, the case against Amazon could set a precedent for how courts interpret the use of forfeited funds in large retirement plans.

The plaintiffs in this case have asserted claims for breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries. Nothing new so far; however, in addition to naming the typical plan fiduciaries as defendants, the lawsuit also targets members of the board of directors, as well as other officers of the firm who serve on the retirement plan’s fiduciary investment committee.

Recently the Bell vs. ATH Holding Company, LLC (a subsidiary of Anthem, Inc.) lawsuit settled. This is frequently referred to as the “Anthem Settlement” (the “Settlement”). The Settlement received quite a bit of attention from both the industry and mainstream press for a number of reasons, not the least of which include the size of the 401(k) plan ($5.1 billion), the size of the monetary settlement ($23,650,000), as well as inclusion of somewhat unusual non-monetary terms. This article provides background regarding the underlying allegations, a description of the settlement, and what the terms of the settlement may mean from a practical perspective to plan fiduciaries.