Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor

Regulation and Compliance > Litigation

Janus 401(k) Plan Loaded With Subpar Proprietary Funds, Suit Claims

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

What You Need to Know

  • Plaintiffs contend Janus used the plan to promote Janus Henderson’s proprietary investments and earn profits for Janus.
  • Janus’ favoritism has led to the payment of excessive investment management fees by participants, the suit states.
  • Janus retained proprietary funds over less expensive, superior nonproprietary funds.

Janus Henderson is facing a class-action lawsuit over claims that it loaded its 401(k) plan with proprietary funds that exhibited “chronic underperformance” and charged high fees.

According to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by plan participant Sandra Schissler on behalf of the class, Janus Henderson has “not acted in participants’ best interest” and has “used the Plan to promote Janus Henderson’s proprietary investments and earn profits for Janus Henderson.”

As of the end of 2021, the suit states, Janus “stocked the Plan’s investment menu with 40 proprietary investments: 1 proprietary money market fund and 39 proprietary mutual funds.”

The suit states that “an objective and prudent review of comparable investments in the marketplace would have revealed numerous available investments that were less costly and superior to the Janus Henderson Funds” that Janus selected and retained in the plan.

A request for comment from Janus was not returned by press time.

From 2016 through the end of 2021, the plan had between 1,700 and 1,900 participants and approximately $246 million to $512 million in assets, according to the suit.

As of the end of 2016, the plan’s investment menu included 53 investments, including 44 proprietary Janus Henderson funds.

“From 2016 until 2021, certain Janus Henderson funds were eliminated from the Plan’s menu due to liquidations or mergers,” the suit maintains. “But Defendants did not choose to remove a single proprietary Janus Henderson investment from the Plan’s menu during that time. In fact, they often added new proprietary Janus Henderson funds shortly after each fund’s creation.”

As a result, by the end of 2021, the plan’s menu consisted of 50 investments, including 40 proprietary Janus Henderson Funds.

The suit goes on to state that while including proprietary funds in a plan’s investment menu “is not a per se breach of the duty of loyalty or prudence, a fiduciary’s process for selecting and monitoring proprietary funds is subject to the same duties that apply to selecting and monitoring nonproprietary funds.”

Based on Janus’ “retention of proprietary funds over less expensive, superior nonproprietary funds, it is reasonable to infer that Defendants’ process for selecting and monitoring the Janus Henderson Funds was disloyal and imprudent,” the suit states.

Janus’ “favoritism has led to the payment of excessive investment management fees by participants to Janus Henderson, a failure to prudently monitor and remove the underperforming proprietary Janus Henderson Funds, and a failure to engage in a prudent and loyal process in the selection of new Plan investments,” the suit contends.

Higher Fees Than Comparable Plans

Even compared to other actively managed funds, the Janus Henderson Funds “charged higher fees relative to nonproprietary alternatives selected by similarly sized plans. So, it is reasonable to infer that Defendants failed to properly investigate lower-cost, nonproprietary alternatives,” the suit states.

Throughout the putative class period, annual investment fees paid by plan participants were at least 0.45% to 0.50% of total plan assets, consistently higher than the average 401(k) plan of similar size, the suit states.

“But excluding the Plan’s nonproprietary options (all of which are passively managed investments) results in annual investment fees of at least 0.64% to 0.68% of total Plan assets. In contrast, the average 401(k) plan with $250 million to $500 million in assets had total plan costs of 0.44% in 2016, down to 0.42% in 2018, the most recent year for which total plan cost data is available,” the suit said.

In 2018, the most recent year for which average fee data is available, the suit continues, “the Janus Henderson Funds’ fees exceeded the average expense ratio for funds within the same asset class category among plans with $250 million to $500 million in assets by an average of 62%.”

It adds: “When looking only at leading actively managed funds invested in similar styles to the Janus Henderson Funds, the excessive fees are approximately 25% and as high as 131% above average.”


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.