A federal district court in the District of Columbia dismissed
ERISA fiduciary-breach claims by participants in Georgetown's
403(b) retirement plans that were predicated on allegations that
the trustees invested in funds that allegedly charged excessive
fees and underperformed relative to alleged comparable funds, and
that the fund paid excessive recordkeeping fees. To begin
with, the court concluded that plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing, i.e., they had not experienced any harm, as to
three of the challenged funds because they failed to allege
that: (i) they were invested in the challenged funds,
(ii) the challenged funds outperformed plaintiffs' alleged
comparable investment fund, and/or (iii) that they had withdrawn,
or planned to withdraw from, one of the funds that charged an
allegedly excessive 2.5% early-withdrawal fee in exchange for a
lump-sum payout. Next, the court rejected plaintiffs'
arguments that the plan's fiduciaries acted imprudently