Opinion ID: 4389469
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Teets’s ERISA Claims

Text: Mr. Teets alleged three ERISA violations. His first two claims alleged Great-West had violated ERISA’s fiduciary duty provisions. First, Mr. Teets claimed that GreatWest had breached its general duty of loyalty under § 404 by (1) setting the Credited Rate for its own benefit rather than for the plans’ and participants’ benefit, (2) setting the Credited Rate artificially low and retaining the difference as profit, and (3) charging excessive fees. Second, he claimed that Great-West, again acting in its fiduciary capacity, had engaged in a prohibited transaction under § 406(b) by “deal[ing] with the assets of the plan in [its] own interest or for [its] own account.” 29 U.S.C. § 1106(b). As a prerequisite to bring both of these claims, Mr. Teets alleged that Great-West is an ERISA fiduciary because it exercises authority or control over the quarterly Credited Rate and, by extension, controls its compensation. The district court limited its review of these two fiduciary duty claims by addressing only this prerequisite—that is, whether Mr. Teets had sufficiently established Great-West’s fiduciary status. Because the court found that Great-West was not a fiduciary, it did not address whether GreatWest had breached any fiduciary obligations. Great-West’s fiduciary status is thus the focus of our review of Mr. Teets’s fiduciary duty claims. 8 The class period runs “until the time of trial.” Teets, 315 F.R.D. at 374. 12 Mr. Teets’s third claim, raised in the alternative, was based on Great-West’s having non-fiduciary status. He alleged that Great-West was a non-fiduciary party in interest to a non-exempt prohibited transaction under § 406(a) insofar as it had used plan assets for its own benefit. On all three claims, Mr. Teets sought declaratory and injunctive relief and “other appropriate equitable relief,” including restitution and an accounting for profits. Aplt. App., Vol. I at 37.