Here is a link to the article (free registration required). Here’s the part where I was quoted:
David Rintoul, of Brown, Paindiris, & Scott's Glastonbury office, was not involved in the case but focuses on ERISA issues and authors an ERISA blog. Rintoul explained that this litigation was not between individual investors and Nationwide; instead, the plaintiffs were the executives who ran the corporate 401(k) plans. For instance,
he said if X,Y,Z machine shop had a 401(k) plan and arranged with Nationwide to offer it to employees, Nationwide, in choosing the investment product for the employees, chose which mutual fund which offered to share the most revenue.
"So it's essentially a kickback," said Rintoul. "It creates the appearance Nationwide was choosing who would give it the best deal rather than the fiduciary duty of doing what was best for the plans and ultimately the participants."
Rintoul said the landscape has changed significantly since 2001 when this case began. He said there are more requirements now regarding fee disclosures.
"To some extent, Nationwide addresses an issue [in the settlement] that shouldn't exist anymore," said Rintoul.
While this blog is primarily focused on those with long-term disability benefit claims, my ERISA practice covers all areas of ERISA, including breach of fiduciary duty cases. If you have any potentional breach of fiduciary duty cases under ERISA, please call and I would be happy to discuss it.