Loomis v. Exelon Corp.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' action alleging that defendant-defined-contribution pension plan offered too expensive mutual fund options in said plan in terms of ratios of expenses to assets that plaintiffs claimed violated requirements set forth in section 1104(a) of ERISA. Record showed that defendant offered plan participants 32 investment options, with various expense ratios that included 24 "no load" mutual funds that were also open to general public, and that included high expense/high-risk funds that had potential for high reward returns, as well as low expense/low risk funds with modest returns. Ct. found that nothing in ERISA required plan fiduciaries to scour market to find and offer cheapest possible funds as long as plan offered instant wide variety of options. Ct. also rejected plaintiffs' claims that defendant could not offer retail mutual funds that charged same expenses as those charged to general public, and that defendant should have covered administrative costs of all mutual funds contained in plan.