UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

Jeffrey McGinnes, Wendy Berry, Lorri Hulings, 

and Kathleen Sammons, individually and as 

representatives of a class of similarly situated 

persons, and on behalf of the FirstGroup America, 

Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FirstGroup America, Inc., FirstGroup America, 

Inc. Employee Benefits Committee, and Aon 

Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:18-cv-326 

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED CLASS 

ACTION COMPLAINT 

DEFENDANT AON HEWITT INVESTMENT CONSULTING, INC.’S ANSWER TO SECOND 

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Defendant Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc. (“AHIC”) respectfully submits its answer and 

affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ Jeffrey McGinnes, Wendy Berry, Lorri Hulings, and Kathleen 

Sammons (“Plaintiffs”) Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”). Unless 

specifically admitted, AHIC denies each and every averment in the Complaint. To the extent that 

Plaintiffs have included headings, footnotes, or other impertinent material that is inappropriate under 

Rules 8 and 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no response is necessary and any such 

inappropriate material should be stricken. In any event, to the extent any headings or inappropriate 

material are deemed to require a response, AHIC denies them. AHIC expressly reserves the right to 

amend and/or supplement its Answer as may be necessary. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 1 of 31 PAGEID #: 1570
- 2 - 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. AHIC admits that Plaintiffs purport to assert claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) and (3), on behalf of the 

First Group America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan (the “Plan”) and a class of participants and 

beneficiaries of the Plan, but denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief on their claims. AHIC admits 

that changes were made to the Plan’s investment lineup in 2013. AHIC denies the remaining allegations 

in paragraph 1, and specifically denies that it has breached any fiduciary duties. 

2. The allegations in paragraph 2 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring an action, and seek 

remedies, pursuant to ERISA, but denies that the action is proper and that any remedies are appropriate. 

AHIC admits that in 2013, the Plan removed multiple funds from the Plan’s lineup and added multiple 

funds that were managed by an Aon Hewitt company and that had inception dates in 2013. AHIC admits 

that the Plan invested a total of over $250 million in the funds managed by an Aon Hewitt company when 

those funds were added to the Plan’s investment lineup and that that amount represented more than 90% 

of the Plan’s total assets. AHIC states that paragraph 2 purports to quote or otherwise summarize Tibble 

v. Edison Int’l, 135 S.Ct. 1823, 1828 (2015), which judicial decision speaks for itself. AHIC denies all 

remaining allegations in paragraph 2. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

3. AHIC states that paragraph 3 purports to summarize the contents of an internet article and 

a Department of Labor Bulletin, which speak for themselves. Except as so stated, AHIC lacks sufficient 

information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, the remaining allegations in paragraph 3. 

4. The allegations in paragraph 4 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 4 purports to quote or otherwise 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 2 of 31 PAGEID #: 1571
- 3 - 

summarize 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) and Chao v. Hall Holding Co., Inc., 285 F.3d 415, 426 (6th Cir. 

2002), which statutory provision and judicial decision speak for themselves. 

5. The allegations in paragraph 5 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 5. 

6. AHIC admits that it has been an investment consultant with respect to the Plan and has 

provided analysis and advice in that role. AHIC further states that paragraph 6 purports to quote or 

otherwise summarize Pegram v. Hedrich, 530 U.S. 211, 224, 235 (2000) and a website, which judicial 

decision and website speak for themselves. 

7. AHIC admits it has provided independent advice to the Plan and assisted in the 

construction of a diverse Plan lineup consisting of funds with different managers. AHIC further admits 

that an Aon Hewitt company created investment products in 2013 that are available for investment by 

401(k) plans. Except as so admitted, AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 7. 

8. AHIC admits that the Plan was among the first in the United States to offer the Aon Funds 

as a Plan investment option. AHIC further admits that in 2013, a number of the Plan’s investment 

options were removed from the Plan and that the Aon Hewitt Core Plus Bond Fund, Aon Hewitt Inflation 

Strategy Fund, Aon Hewitt Large Cap Equity Fund, Aon Hewitt Small and Mid-Cap Equity Fund, Aon 

Hewitt Non-U.S. Equity Fund, and the Aon Hewitt Retirement Solution Target Date Funds (the “Aon 

Funds”) were added to the Plan. AHIC admits that as of Q4 2013 the Plan had over $250 million 

invested in the Aon Funds, and that the Aon Hewitt Retirement Solution target date funds became the 

Plan’s default investment option. Except as so admitted, AHIC denies the remaining allegations in 

paragraph 8. 

9. AHIC admits that the funds removed from the Plan’s investment lineup were managed by 

asset managers at financial companies including Morgan Stanley, T. Rowe Price, and Dodge & Cox, and 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 3 of 31 PAGEID #: 1572
- 4 - 

that those companies had multiple years’ experience managing investment products for investors, 

including retirement plans. AHIC further admits that as of 2013, the funds removed from the Plan’s 

investment lineup met or exceeded their stated benchmarks over some time horizon. AHIC denies the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 9. 

10. AHIC denies the allegations of paragraph 10. 

11. The allegations in paragraph 11 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 11 purports to quote or otherwise 

summarize a version of the Plan’s investment policy statement, which document speaks for itself. AHIC 

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 11 and incorporates its responses to paragraphs 62–70 as if 

fully set forth here. 

12. The allegations in paragraph 12 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC further states that paragraph 12 purports to summarize the 

contents of a version of the Plan’s investment policy statement, which document speaks for itself. AHIC 

further states that the Plan has continued to include certain of the Aon funds as investment options. 

AHIC admits that the returns of certain of the Aon Funds were both less than the hypothetical returns of 

certain benchmarks over certain periods of time and greater than the hypothetical returns of certain 

benchmarks over other periods of time. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 12. 

13. AHIC admits that Plaintiffs bring an action, and seek remedies, pursuant to ERISA, but 

denies that the action is proper and that any remedies are appropriate. AHIC denies the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 13. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 4 of 31 PAGEID #: 1573
- 5 - 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

14. The allegations in paragraph 14 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent paragraph 14 requires a response, AHIC states that the statutory provisions referenced in 

paragraph 14 speak for themselves. 

15. The allegations in paragraph 15 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent paragraph 15 requires a response, AHIC admits that FirstGroup America, Inc. 

(“FirstGroup”) has offices in this district but denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 15. 

THE PARTIES 

16. The allegations in paragraph 16 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Aon Hewitt 2030 Retirement Solution Fund 

has invested in the Aon Hewitt Growth Fund, Aon Hewitt Income Fund, Aon Hewitt Global Equity Fund, 

Aon Hewitt Non-U.S. Equity Fund, SSgA Global Equity ex-U.S. Index Fund, Aon Hewitt Large Cap 

Equity Fund, SSgA S&P 500 Index Fund, Aon Hewitt Small & Mid Cap Equity Fund, SSgA U.S. 

Inflation Protected Bond Index Fund, SSgA Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Index Fund, and the Aon 

Hewitt High Yield Plus Fund. AHIC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, 

the allegations in paragraph 16 concerning Mr. McGinnes’ residence, participation in the Plan, and 

investment in the Aon Hewitt 2030 Retirement Solution Fund. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 16, and specifically denies that it breached any fiduciary duty. 

17. The allegations in paragraph 17 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Aon Hewitt 2035 Retirement Solution Fund 

has invested in the Aon Hewitt Growth Fund, Aon Hewitt Global Equity Fund, Aon Hewitt Income Fund, 

Aon Hewitt Non-U.S. Equity Fund, SSgA Global Equity ex-U.S. Index Fund, SSgA S&P 500 Index 

Fund, Aon Hewitt Inflation Strategy Fund, Aon Hewitt Small & Mid Cap Equity Fund, SSgA Bloomberg 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 5 of 31 PAGEID #: 1574
- 6 - 

Roll Select Commodity Index Fund, Aon Hewitt High Yield Plus Fund, and the SSgA U.S. Inflation 

Protected Bond Index Fund. AHIC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, 

the allegations in paragraph 17 concerning Ms. Berry’s residence, participation in the Plan, and 

investment in the Aon Hewitt 2035 Retirement Solution Fund. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in 

paragraph 17 and specifically denies that it breached any fiduciary duty. 

18. The allegations in paragraph 18 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Aon Hewitt 2025 Retirement Solution Fund 

has invested in the Aon Hewitt Growth Fund, Aon Hewitt Income Fund, Aon Hewitt Inflation Strategy 

Fund, Aon Hewitt Global Equity Fund, Aon Hewitt Non-U.S. Equity Fund, SSgA U.S. Inflation 

Protected Bond Index Fund, SSgA Global Equity ex-U.S. Index Fund, Aon Hewitt Large Cap Equity 

Fund, SSgA S&P 500 Index Fund, SSgA Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Index Fund, Aon Hewitt 

Small & Mid Cap Equity Fund, and Aon Hewitt Core Plus Bond Fund. AHIC lacks sufficient 

information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, the allegations in paragraph 18 concerning Ms. 

Hulings’ residence, participation in the Plan, and investment in the Aon Hewitt 2025 Retirement Solution 

Fund. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 18 and specifically denies that it breached 

any fiduciary duty. 

19. The allegations in paragraph 19 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Aon Hewitt 2025 Retirement Solution Fund 

has invested in the Aon Hewitt Growth Fund, Aon Hewitt Income Fund, Aon Hewitt Inflation Strategy 

Fund, Aon Hewitt Global Equity Fund, Aon Hewitt Non-U.S. Equity Fund, SSgA U.S. Inflation 

Protected Bond Index Fund, SSgA Global Equity ex-U.S. Index Fund, Aon Hewitt Large Cap Equity 

Fund, SSgA S&P 500 Index Fund, SSgA Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Index Fund, Aon Hewitt 

Small & Mid Cap Equity Fund, and Aon Hewitt Core Plus Bond Fund. AHIC lacks sufficient 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 6 of 31 PAGEID #: 1575
- 7 - 

information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, the allegations in paragraph 19 concerning Ms. 

Sammons’ residence, participation in the Plan, and investment in the Aon Hewitt 2025 Retirement 

Solution Fund. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 19, including that it breached any 

fiduciary duty. 

20. The allegations in paragraph 20 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent that a response is required, AHIC admits that FirstGroup provides transportation services, 

and has offices in Cincinnati, Ohio. AHIC further states that paragraph 20 purports to summarize the 

contents of the Plan’s Form 5500s, which documents speaks for itself. Except as so admitted, AHIC 

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, the allegations in paragraph 20. 

21. The allegations in paragraph 21 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that it is its understanding that a committee of 

FirstGroup employees carries out certain responsibilities with respect to the Plan. Except as so admitted, 

AHIC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, the remaining allegations in 

paragraph 21. 

22. The allegations in paragraph 22 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that it is a registered investment adviser headquartered 

in Chicago, Illinois. AHIC was formed in 2010 when Hewitt Associates LLC purchased Ennis Knupp & 

Associates. Hewitt Associates LLC was subsequently acquired by a predecessor to Aon plc. AHIC 

further admits that it has offered investment consulting services to the Plan and receives compensation 

for its services pursuant to an agreement. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 22. 

23. The allegations in paragraph 23 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 23. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 7 of 31 PAGEID #: 1576
- 8 - 

THE PLAN 

24. The allegations in paragraph 24 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore 

denies, the allegations in paragraph 24, except admits that the Plan went into effect on January 1, 2009. 

25. The allegations in paragraph 25 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Plan covers eligible employees of FirstGroup 

who may contribute a portion of their earnings to the Plan, and that eligible employees may receive taxdeferred contributions from their employer. AHIC further admits that prior to September 30, 2013, the 

Plan included eleven investment options, and that these options included a target date option managed by 

T. Rowe Price, the Wells Fargo Stable Return Fund, a S&P 500 index fund, and eight actively-managed 

mutual funds managed by asset managers at financial companies including American Funds and Dodge 

& Cox, who were experienced in managing funds. AHIC further admits that those mutual funds were in 

different asset classes. Except as so admitted, AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 25. 

26. AHIC admits that, with the exception of the Wells Fargo Stable Return Fund, the Plan’s 

existing options were removed from the Plan’s investment lineup effective October 1, 2013, and that a 

self-directed brokerage account (“SDBA”) was added to the Plan’s investment lineup. AHIC further 

admits that the Plan’s investment options beginning October 1, 2013 included the Wells Fargo Stable 

Return Fund, Aon Hewitt Core Plus Bond Fund, Aon Hewitt Inflation Strategy Fund, Aon Hewitt Large 

Cap Equity Fund, Aon Hewitt Small & Mid Cap Equity, Aon Hewitt Non-U.S. Equity, and Aon Hewitt 

Retirement Solution Target Date Funds. AHIC admits that after September 30, 2013, the Plan’s 

investment options outside the SDBA did not include an option with an entirely passive investment 

strategy. Except as so admitted, AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 26. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 8 of 31 PAGEID #: 1577
- 9 - 

ERISA FIDUCIARY DUTIES 

27. The allegations in paragraph 27 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 27 purports to quote or otherwise 

summarize 29 U.S.C. § 1001(a), Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 845 (1997), and Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. 

v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 140 n.8 (1985), which statutory provision and judicial decisions speak for 

themselves. 

28. The allegations in paragraph 28 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 28 purports to quote or otherwise 

summarize 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) and Hall Holding Co., 285 F.3d 415, 426 (6th Cir. 2002) and Howard 

v. Shay, 100 F.3d 1484, 1488 (9th Cir. 1996), which statutory provision and judicial decisions speak for 

themselves. 

29. The allegations in paragraph 29 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 29 purports to quote or otherwise rely on 

29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1), Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 235 (2000), Pfeil v. State St. Bank & Tr. Co., 

671 F.3d 585, 597 (6th Cir. 2012), and a Department of Labor opinion, which statutory provision, 

judicial decisions, and Department of Labor opinion speak for themselves. 

30. The allegations in paragraph 30 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 30 purports to quote or otherwise 

summarize Bedrick ex rel. Humrickhouse v. Travelers Ins. Co., 93 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir. 1996), which 

judicial decision speaks for itself. 

31. The allegations in paragraph 31 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 31 purports to quote or otherwise 

summarize 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B) and a document from the Department of Labor website, which 

statutory provision and website speak for themselves. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 9 of 31 PAGEID #: 1578
- 10 - 

32. The allegations in paragraph 32 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, paragraph 32 purports to quote Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 135 S.Ct. 

1823, 1828 (2015), which judicial opinion speaks for itself. 

33. The allegations in paragraph 33 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 33 purports to quote, summarize, or 

otherwise rely on In re Ford Motor Co. ERISA Litig., 590 F. Supp.2d 883, 908 n.11 (E.D. Mich. 2008) 

and Chao v. Hall Holding Co., Inc., 285 F.3d 415, 426 (6th Cir. 2002), which judicial decisions speaks 

for themselves. 

34. The allegations in paragraph 34 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 34 purports to rely on 29 U.S.C. § 

1104(a), which statutory provision speaks for itself. 

THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN INVESTMENT MENU 

35. The allegations in paragraph 35 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 35 purports to quote, summarize, or 

otherwise rely on 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(C); 29 C.F.R. § 2550.404c, which statutory and regulatory 

provisions speak for themselves. 

36. AHIC states that paragraph 36 purports to summarize the contents of internet and law 

review articles, which speak for themselves. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 36. 

37. AHIC states that it lacks sufficient information regarding the fees and expenses of every 

pooled investment product, and therefore denies the allegations in paragraph 37. 

38. AHIC admits that fixed investments, bonds, stocks, real estate and commodities are 

sometimes characterized as asset classes; that stable value funds, guaranteed investment contracts and 

money market funds are sometimes characterized as fixed investments; and that bonds are sometimes 

referred to as debt securities. AHIC further admits that bonds are sometimes categorized by the nature of 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 10 of 31 PAGEID #: 1579
- 11 - 

the issuer or borrower, the duration of the debt or the risks associated with a borrower. AHIC also admits 

that equity investments provide ownership interests in companies. Except as so admitted, AHIC denies 

the allegations in paragraph 38. 

39. AHIC admits that equity investments are sometimes categorized by whether they invest in 

domestic or international companies, or both; the size of companies in which they invest; and their 

investment style. AHIC also admits that funds that invest in the stock of companies that are viewed as 

growing quickly are sometimes referred to as growth funds; that funds that invest in the stock of 

companies that are viewed as established and undervalued are sometimes referred to as value funds; and 

that funds that invest in both types of companies are sometimes referred to as blend funds. Except as so 

admitted, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 39. 

40. AHIC admits that funds that invest in multiple asset classes are sometimes referred to as 

balanced funds and that target date funds could be considered a type of balanced fund. AHIC further 

admits that target date funds are typically invested in a variety of asset classes, commonly including 

equity and debt securities, that are adjusted to become more conservatively invested as a designated date 

approaches. AHIC further admits that target date funds are often offered by financial companies as a 

suite of funds, with individual target date funds having different target dates. AHIC also admits that 

target date funds often invest in underlying pooled investment vehicles and that such a structure is 

sometimes referred to as a “fund of funds” structure. Except as so admitted, AHIC denies the allegations 

in paragraph 40. 

41. AHIC states that it lacks sufficient information regarding associations related to target 

date funds or the expectations of participants invested in target date funds, and therefore denies the 

allegations in paragraph 41. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 11 of 31 PAGEID #: 1580
- 12 - 

42. AHIC admits that funds that seek to match the performance of a market index are 

commonly referred to as index funds or passive funds and that funds through which an investment 

manager seeks to outperform a market index through investment selection are commonly known as 

actively-manage funds. AHIC further admits that funds that seek to outperform a market index 

sometimes have higher expense ratios than funds within the same asset class that seek to match the 

performance of the index. AHIC states that paragraph 42 purports to summarize the contents of an article 

and Department of Labor document, which speak for themselves. Except as so admitted and stated, 

AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 42. 

43. The allegations in paragraph 43 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that some plans offer participants the ability to invest 

SDBA that provides access to a large number of mutual funds or other investments. AHIC lacks 

sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, the allegations concerning the extent to 

which participants in plans invest in SDBAs. AHIC states that paragraph 43 purports to summarize the 

contents of a law review article and Wildman v. Am. Century Services, LLC, 237 F. Supp. 3d 902, 913 

(W.D. Mo. 2017), which judicial decision and article speak for themselves. AHIC denies the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 43. 

44. The allegations in paragraph 44 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 44 purports to summarize the contents of 

Tussey v. ABB, Inc., 850 F.3d 951, 956 (8th Cir. 2017), Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, 588 F.3d 585, 596 

(8th Cir. 2009), which judicial decisions speak for themselves. 

45. The allegations in paragraph 45 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 45 purports to summarize the contents of 

Terraza v. Safeway, 241 F. Supp. 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2017), which judicial opinion speaks for itself. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 12 of 31 PAGEID #: 1581
- 13 - 

DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ERISA 

46. AHIC admits that it is and has been one of the largest providers of investment consulting 

services to institutional investors. AHIC admits that its services for clients sometimes include investment 

lineup analysis, investment policy development, manager services, and ongoing performance reporting 

and evaluation. Except as so admitted, AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 46. 

47. AHIC admits it was formed in 2010 when Hewitt Associates LLC purchased Ennis Knupp 

& Associates. Hewitt Associates LLC was subsequently acquired by a predecessor to Aon plc. AHIC 

further admits that it is and has been one of the largest providers of investment consulting services to 

institutional investors. AHIC states that paragraph 47 purports to summarize the contents of internet 

articles, which speak for themselves. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 47. 

48. AHIC admits that an Aon Hewitt company was involved in the creation of collective 

investment trusts that are available for investment by defined contribution plans. AHIC further admits 

that it was formed in 2010 when Hewitt Associates LLC purchased Ennis Knupp & Associates. AHIC 

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 48. 

49. AHIC admits that it provides independent and objective advice to its consulting clients 

and that it has identified investment funds managed by Aon affiliates as potential investment options for 

certain plan clients. AHIC further states that paragraph 49 purports to quote or otherwise summarize the 

content of internet materials, which materials speak for themselves. AHIC denies the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 49. 

50. AHIC admits that it regularly consulted with FirstGroup regarding investment options in 

the Plan. AHIC further admits that in 2013, a number of the Plan’s investment options were removed 

from the Plan’s investment lineup and the Aon Funds were added to the investment lineup at that time. 

AHIC further admits that the Aon Hewitt Retirement Solution target date funds became the Plan’s default 

investment option. AHIC also admits that as of Q4 2013 the Plan had more than $250 million invested in 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 13 of 31 PAGEID #: 1582
- 14 - 

the Aon Funds. AHIC further admits that the Plan was among the first plans to offer the Aon Funds as 

plan investment options and that AHIC provides services to the other plans that invest in those funds. 

AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 50. 

51. AHIC admits that the Funds identified in the “Before” column in Illustration 1 reflect the 

investment options in the Plan’s investment lineup immediately before the Aon Funds were added to the 

Plan’s investment lineup. AHIC further admits that the funds identified in the “After” column in 

Illustration 1 reflect the investment options in the Plan’s investment lineup, other than the SDBA, 

immediately after the Aon Funds were added to the Plan’s investment lineup. Except as so admitted, 

AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 51. 

52. AHIC admits that as of October 1, 2013, the Aon Hewitt Retirement Solution target date 

funds became the Plan’s default investment option. AHIC further admits that immediately after the Aon 

Funds were added as Plan investment options, those funds had over $250 million invested in them. 

AHIC further admits that following the addition of the Aon Funds to the Plan’s investment lineup, there 

was no entirely passively-managed index fund in the Plan’s investment lineup, excluding the SDBA, and 

that the Wells Fargo Stable Return Fund was the only investment option outside the SDBA other than the 

Aon Funds. AHIC further states that paragraph 52 purports to quote a Form ADV, which document 

speaks for itself. AHIC denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 52. 

53. AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 53. 

54. AHIC admits that the funds that were removed from the Plan’s investment lineup at the 

time that the Aon Funds were added to that lineup had been in existence for some time and were 

managed by investment managers who had experience managing investment products. AHIC further 

admits that those funds included funds styled as large cap, mid cap, small cap, and international stock 

funds, and that some of those funds were styled as either “growth” or “value” options. AHIC further 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 14 of 31 PAGEID #: 1583
- 15 - 

admits that participants could allocate their participant accounts among the Plan’s options. AHIC also 

admits that the funds in the T. Rowe Price target date series were purported to be managed to provide 

investors an appropriate portfolio based on a targeted retirement date. Except as so admitted, AHIC 

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 54. 

55. AHIC admits that the funds referenced in paragraph 55 were removed from the Plan’s 

investment lineup at the time that the Aon Funds were added to that lineup, and that the funds removed 

from the Plan’s investment lineup had been in existence for some time. AHIC further states that the chart 

in paragraph 55 appears to refer to the public financial reports in footnotes 15 through 22, which reports 

speak for themselves. 

56. AHIC admits that the T. Rowe Price Retirement target date funds removed from the Plan’s 

investment lineup in 2013 had, as of the time of their removal, met or exceeded their stated benchmarks 

prior to their removal from the Plan investment lineup for certain periods of time. 

57. AHIC admits that the Aon Funds had inception dates in fall 2013. AHIC states that 

paragraph 57 purports to quote or otherwise summarize a putative expert report in another lawsuit, which 

report speaks for itself. Except as so admitted and stated, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 57. 

58. AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 58. 

59. The allegations in paragraph 59 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

AHIC admits that the Plan was among the first plans to offer the Aon Funds as plan investment options. 

AHIC states that it lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, the assertions in 

paragraph 59 regarding the number of retirement plans in the United States in 2013. AHIC denies the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 59. 

60. The allegations in paragraph 60 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Aon Hewitt Retirement Solution target date 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 15 of 31 PAGEID #: 1584
- 16 - 

funds became the Plan’s default investment option, and that the Aon Funds had over $250 million 

invested in them. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 60. 

61. The allegations in paragraph 61 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 61. 

62. AHIC admits that the FirstGroup, Inc. Employee Benefits Committee (the “Committee”) 

adopted a version of an investment policy statement in February 2013. AHIC further states that 

paragraph 62 purports to quote the contents of that version of the Plan’s investment policy statement, 

which speaks for itself. AHIC denies that the allegations in paragraph 62 accurately quote or summarize 

the provisions of the Plan’s investment policy statement as of the date the Aon Funds were added to the 

Plan’s investment lineup. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 62. 

63. AHIC states that the allegations in paragraph 63 assert legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 63 purports to 

quote or summarize documents, including internet articles and a version of the Plan’s investment policy 

statement, which speaks for themselves. AHIC denies that the allegations in paragraph 63 accurately 

quote or summarize the provisions of the Plan’s investment policy statement as of the date the Aon Funds 

were added to the Plan’s investment lineup. AHIC admits that the Aon Funds had inception dates in fall 

2013. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 63. 

64. AHIC states that the allegations in paragraph 64 assert legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 64 purports to 

quote or otherwise summarize contents of a version of the Plan’s investment policy statement, which 

speaks for itself. AHIC denies that paragraph 64 accurately quotes or summarizes the version of the 

investment policy statement in effect as of the date the Aon Funds were added to the Plan’s investment 

lineup. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 64. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 16 of 31 PAGEID #: 1585
- 17 - 

65. AHIC states that the allegations in paragraph 65 assert legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that it was formed in 2010 when 

Hewitt Associates LLC purchased Ennis Knupp & Associates. Hewitt Associates LLC was subsequently 

acquired by a predecessor to Aon plc. AHIC states that paragraph 65 purports to quote or otherwise 

summarize the contents of a version of the Plan’s investment policy statement, which speaks for itself. 

AHIC denies that paragraph 65 accurately summarizes the provisions of the version of the Plan’s 

investment policy statement as of the date the Aon Funds were added to the Plan’s investment lineup. 

AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 65. 

66. AHIC states that the allegations in paragraph 66 assert legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 66 purports to 

quote or otherwise summarize contents of a version of the Plan’s investment policy statement, which 

speaks for itself. AHIC denies that paragraph 66 accurately summarizes the provisions of the version of 

the Plan’s investment policy statement as of the date the Aon Funds were added to the Plan’s investment 

lineup. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 66. 

67. AHIC states that the allegations in paragraph 67 assert legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 67 purports to 

summarize the contents of certain documents including the Plan’s investment policy statement and 

committee minutes, which speak for themselves. AHIC denies that paragraph 67 accurately summarizes 

the provisions of the version of the Plan’s investment policy statement as of the date the Aon Funds were 

added to the Plan’s investment lineup. AHIC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore 

denies, the allegations in paragraph 67 regarding the extent of FirstGroup’s awareness of the matters 

alleged. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 67. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 17 of 31 PAGEID #: 1586
- 18 - 

68. AHIC states that the allegations in paragraph 68 assert legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 68 purports to 

summarize documents including Committee minutes, which speak for themselves. AHIC admits the 

AHIC was retained by FirstGroup to provide investment management services and that Aon Funds were 

selected as Plan investment options. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 68. 

69. AHIC states that paragraph 69 purports to quote or otherwise summarize certain 

committee minutes and an agreement, which documents speak for themselves. AHIC admits that the 

Committee met on August 29, 2013 and that a representative of FirstGroup signed an agreement with 

AHIC on that date. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 69. 

70. The allegations in paragraph 70 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Plan’s investment management agreement was 

amended in September 2013, that AHIC was retained by FirstGroup to provide investment management 

services, and that Aon Funds were selected as Plan investment options. AHIC further states that 

paragraph 70 purports to quote or otherwise summarize a version of the investment management 

agreement between FirstGroup and AHIC, which speaks for itself. AHIC denies the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 70. 

71. AHIC admits that Plaintiffs purport to calculate the “average annual return since 

inception, +/- fund benchmark” and “average annual return since inception +/- removed fund(s).” To the 

extent that Plaintiffs purport to summarize or state information reported in other documents, including 

AHIC documents containing information concerning the performance of the Aon Funds or any 

comparators or benchmarks, AHIC states that such documents speak for themselves. Except as so stated, 

AHIC lacks sufficient information regarding Plaintiffs’ purported calculations, including Plaintiffs’ 

methodology and sources of information, to admit or deny the accuracy of those purported calculations, 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 18 of 31 PAGEID #: 1587
- 19 - 

and therefore denies Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the results of those calculations. AHIC admits that 

the returns of certain of the Aon Funds were both less than the hypothetical returns of certain benchmarks 

over certain periods and greater than the hypothetical returns of certain benchmarks over other periods. 

AHIC denies all other allegations in paragraph 71. 

72. AHIC states that paragraph 72 purports to summarize a Form 5500, which speaks for 

itself. AHIC admits that Plaintiffs purport to have calculated the relative performance of the Aon Hewitt 

Retirement Solution target date funds on some weighted average basis. To the extent that Plaintiffs 

purport to summarize or state information reported in other documents, including AHIC documents 

containing information concerning the performance of the Aon Funds or any comparators or benchmarks, 

AHIC states that such documents speak for themselves. Except as so stated, AHIC lacks sufficient 

information regarding Plaintiffs’ purported calculations, including Plaintiffs’ methodology and sources of 

information, to admit or deny the accuracy of those purported calculations, and therefore denies 

Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the results of those calculations. AHIC denies the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 72. 

73. AHIC admits that Plaintiffs purport to have calculated the relative performance of certain 

Aon Funds on some weighted average basis. AHIC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the 

accuracy of those purported calculations, and therefore denies Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the 

results of those calculations. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 73. 

74. AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 74. 

75. The allegations in paragraph 75 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Plan’s investment lineup currently includes 

Aon Funds. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 75. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 19 of 31 PAGEID #: 1588
- 20 - 

76. AHIC states that it lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore denies, the 

assertions in paragraph 76 regarding the number of retirement plans with assets greater than $250 

million. AHIC states that paragraph 76 purports to summarize information from unidentified public 

documents, which speak for themselves. AHIC denies all other allegations in paragraph 76. 

77. The allegations in paragraph 77 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 77. 

78. The allegations in paragraph 78 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Aon Hewitt Retirement Solution target date 

funds invest in underlying funds, including other Aon Hewitt Funds. AHIC denies the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 78, and specifically denies it breached any fiduciary duty. 

79. The allegations in paragraph 79 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 79. 

80. The allegations in paragraph 80 assert legal conclusions as to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and 

therefore denies, the allegations in paragraph 80 concerning the nature of Plaintiffs’ knowledge. AHIC 

denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 80. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

81. The allegations in paragraph 81 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC respectfully refers the Court to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 for an 

accurate statement of its contents. 

82. AHIC admits that Plaintiffs purport to assert claims on behalf of a class of participants 

defined as described in paragraph 82. Except as so admitted, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 

82. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 20 of 31 PAGEID #: 1589
- 21 - 

83. The allegations in paragraph 83 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that at points during the purported class period the 

Plan has had over 13,000 participants, and that some participants have chosen to invest in the Aon Funds. 

AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 83. 

84. The allegations in paragraph 84 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that it lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and 

therefore denies, Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning their participation in the Plan and investment in the 

Aon Funds. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 84. 

85. The allegations in paragraph 85 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that it lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and 

therefore denies, Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the experience of their counsel. AHIC denies the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 85. 

86. The allegations in paragraph 86 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 86. 

87. The allegations in paragraph 87 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 87. 

88. The allegations in paragraph 88 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 88. 

89. The allegations in paragraph 89 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 89. 

COUNT I 

90. AHIC incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 89 as if fully set forth here. 

91. The allegations in paragraph 91 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 21 of 31 PAGEID #: 1590
- 22 - 

92. The allegations in paragraph 92 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 92 purports to quote or otherwise 

summarize a statutory provision, which statutory provision speaks for itself. 

93. The allegations in paragraph 93 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 93 purports to summarize or rely on 

Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 135 S.Ct. 1823, 1828 (2015), which judicial decision speaks for itself. 

94. The allegations in paragraph 94 assert legal conclusions and characterizations to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations contained in 

paragraph 94. 

95. The allegations in paragraph 95 assert legal conclusions and characterizations to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations contained in 

paragraph 95. 

96. The allegations in paragraph 96 assert legal conclusions and characterizations to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations contained in 

paragraph 96. 

97. The allegations in paragraph 97 assert legal conclusions and characterizations to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations contained in 

paragraph 97. 

98. The allegations in paragraph 98 assert legal conclusions and characterizations to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC admits that the Aon Funds have 

inception dates from the fall of 2013 and that the Plan was among the first plans to offer the Aon Funds 

as plan investment options, and denies all other allegations contained in paragraph 98. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 22 of 31 PAGEID #: 1591
- 23 - 

99. The allegations in paragraph 99 assert legal conclusions and characterizations to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations contained in 

paragraph 99. 

100. The allegations in paragraph 100 assert legal conclusions and characterizations to which 

no response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations contained in 

paragraph 100. 

101. The allegations in paragraph 101 assert legal conclusions and characterizations to which 

no response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations contained in 

paragraph 101. 

102. The allegations in paragraph 102 assert legal conclusions and characterizations to which 

no response is required. To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations contained in 

paragraph 102. 

COUNT II 

103. AHIC incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 102 as if fully set forth here. 1

104. The allegations in paragraph 104 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

105. The allegations in paragraph 105 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

106. The allegations in paragraph 106 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that an investment policy statement was adopted by the 

Committee. AHIC further states that paragraph 106 purports to summarize a version of the investment 

policy statement, which speaks for itself. AHIC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 106. 

1

 The Court dismissed Count II as previously pleaded in its March 18, 2021 Order, ECF No. 59, at 29–31. Accordingly, AHIC 

states that no response is required to the allegations in Count II to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to reassert that dismissed 

claim. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 23 of 31 PAGEID #: 1592
- 24 - 

107. The allegations in paragraph 107 asset legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC states that paragraph 107 purports to summarize a version of 

the investment policy statement, which speaks for itself. AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 107. 

108. The allegations in paragraph 108 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 108. 

109. The allegations in paragraph 109 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 109. 

COUNT III 

110. AHIC incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 109 as if fully set forth here. 

111. The allegations in paragraph 111 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

112. The allegations in paragraph 112 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny, and therefore 

denies, the allegations regarding the appointment of other entities and individuals other than AHIC as 

fiduciaries. 

113. The allegations in paragraph 113 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

114. The allegations in paragraph 114 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 114. 

115. The allegations in paragraph 115 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 115. 

116. The allegations in paragraph 116 assert legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, AHIC denies the allegations in paragraph 116. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 AHIC denies each and every allegation in the Prayer for Relief and all of its subparts. AHIC 

denies the allegations, except those specifically admitted above, including each and every portion of the 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 24 of 31 PAGEID #: 1593
- 25 - 

Complaint requesting any relief. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

AHIC asserts the following affirmative defenses. By alleging these affirmative defenses, AHIC 

does not agree or concede that they have the burden of proof on any of the issues raised in these defenses, 

or that any particular issue or subject matter herein is relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations: 

First Affirmative Defense 

(Failure to State a Claim) 

 Plaintiffs fail to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 

Second Affirmative Defense 

(Not Appropriate Relief) 

The claimed relief does not constitute appropriate relief under ERISA § 502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(a)(2). 

Third Affirmative Defense 

(Not Appropriate Relief) 

To the extent Plaintiffs, and those members of the putative class, seek relief that does not 

constitute appropriate equitable relief, they are not entitled to it under ERISA § 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1132(a)(3). 

Fourth Affirmative Defense 

(Prudent Action) 

Without conceding that any Defendant is a fiduciary with respect to the conduct complained of by 

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the members of the putative class, are barred in whole or in part 

because AHIC’s actions were both procedurally and substantively prudent and cannot give rise to 

fiduciary liability under ERISA § 409(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a). 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 25 of 31 PAGEID #: 1594
- 26 - 

Fifth Affirmative Defense 

(Laches) 

Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the members of the putative class, are barred in whole or in part by 

the doctrine of laches. Plaintiffs challenge the offering of an investment option that had been part of the 

Plan’s lineup and whose inclusion was disclosed to Plan participants many years before Plaintiffs filed 

suit. 

Sixth Affirmative Defense 

(Independent Control) 

Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the members of the putative class, are barred in whole or in part to 

the extent that they exercised independent control over their Plan accounts. 

Seventh Affirmative Defense 

(Independent Control/ERISA § 404(c)) 

Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the members of the putative class, are barred in whole or in part by 

application of ERISA § 404(c), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(c). Plaintiffs, and the members of the putative class, 

were able to allocate their accounts freely among a diverse range of investment options whose features 

were fully disclosed to participants. 

Eighth Affirmative Defense 

(Failure to Mitigate) 

 To the extent Plaintiffs have stated a claim on which relief can be granted, Plaintiffs have 

proximately caused, contributed to, or failed to mitigate any and all losses claimed. 

Ninth Affirmative Defense 

(Causation) 

Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the members of the putative class, are barred, in whole or in part, 

because any loss alleged in the Complaint was not caused by the fault or wrongdoing of AHIC or persons 

or entities over which AHIC had responsibility or control. The Aon Funds have provided reasonable 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 26 of 31 PAGEID #: 1595
- 27 - 

returns in light of its investment design, and offers equivalent or superior features, including greater 

diversity, than other options commonly offered in other plans’ lineups. 

Tenth Affirmative Defense 

(Failure to Satisfy Rule 23) 

This action may not be maintained as a class action because Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the 

prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 

Eleventh Affirmative Defense 

(Fraudulent Concealment) 

 Plaintiffs have failed to plead fraudulent concealment with requisite specificity. 

Twelfth Affirmative Defense 

(Failure to Satisfy Rule 23) 

Plaintiffs’ claims to a class action should be denied because any alleged injury cannot be proven 

on a class-wide basis with common methods of proof. 

Thirteenth Affirmative Defense 

 (Failure to Satisfy Rule 23) 

Damages cannot be proven on a class-wide basis. 

Fourteenth Affirmative Defense 

(Failure to Satisfy Rule 23) 

Plaintiffs do not adequately represent the interests of proposed class members. 

Fifteenth Affirmative Defense 

 (Standing) 

Plaintiffs lack standing under ERISA to assert its claims. 

 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 27 of 31 PAGEID #: 1596
- 28 - 

Sixteenth Affirmative Defense 

 (Covenant not to sue) 

 Plaintiffs’ claims or those of the putative class members are barred, in whole or in part, to the 

extent Plaintiffs or the members of the putative class have covenanted not to sue on such claims. 

 

Seventeenth Affirmative Defense 

 (Cognizable Injury) 

Plaintiffs’ claims and those of the putative class are barred because Plaintiffs have not sustained 

any cognizable injury attributable to AHIC’s conduct. 

Eighteenth Affirmative Defense 

 (Administrative Remedies) 

 Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty are barred because Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust 

all administrative remedies. 

Nineteenth Affirmative Defense 

 (Release or Payment) 

 Plaintiffs’ claims or those of the putative class members are barred, in whole or in part, to the 

extent Plaintiffs or the members of the putative class have provided a release covering such claims. 

Twentieth Affirmative Defense 

(Prohibited Transaction Exemption) 

To the extent, if any, the Complaint is intended to assert a claim for a prohibited transaction under 

ERISA § 406, Plaintiffs’ claims for liability are barred in whole or in part by ERISA § 408, and the 

exemptions granted by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the authority granted under ERISA § 408(a). 

Twenty-first Affirmative Defense 

(Statute of Limitations) 

Plaintiffs’ claims, and those of the members of the putative class, are barred in whole or in part by 

the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to ERISA § 413, 29 U.S.C. § 1113 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1658. Plaintiffs challenge conduct occurring more than four years before Plaintiffs filed suit, 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 28 of 31 PAGEID #: 1597
- 29 - 

and they and the putative class members had actual knowledge of their alleged claims more than three 

years before filing suit. 

Reservation of Rights 

AHIC reserves the right to assert, and hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon, any other 

defense that may become available or appear during discovery proceedings or otherwise in this case and 

hereby reserve the right to amend its Answer to assert any such defense. 

DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT 

WHEREFORE, AHIC respectfully request that the Court: 

a) dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice; 

b) award AHIC its attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

c) grant such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 29 of 31 PAGEID #: 1598
Dated: October 14, 2021 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

By: Shannon Barrett 

Shannon Barrett 

sbarrett@omm.com 

Brian Boyle 

Bboyle@omm.com

Shannon Barrett 

Sbarrett@omm.com

1625 Eye Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-4061 

Telephone: +1 202 383 5300 

Facsimile: +1 202 383 5414 

Stuart Sarnoff 

Ssarnoff@omm.com

Times Square Tower 

7 Times Square 

New York, NY 10036 

Telephone: +1 212 326 2000 

Facsimile: +1 212 326 2061 

V. Brandon McGrath (0072057) 

BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP 

2350 First Financial Center 

255 East Fifth Street 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4728 

513.455.7641 

bmcgrath@bgdlegal.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Aon Hewitt Investment 

Consulting, Inc. (NKA Aon Hewitt Investments 

USA, Inc.) 

 

 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 30 of 31 PAGEID #: 1599
- 31 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Shannon Barrett, hereby certify that on October 14, 2021, I electronically filed the 

foregoing DEFENDANT AON HEWITT INVESTMENT CONSULTING INC.’S ANSWER TO 

THE SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT using the CM/ECF system, which 

will send notification of such filing to all registered participants. 

/s/ Shannon Barrett 

Shannon Barrett 

Attorneys for Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting 

Inc. (NKA Aon Investments USA, Inc.) 

Case: 1:18-cv-00326-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 10/14/21 Page: 31 of 31 PAGEID #: 1600