United States: District Court Rules On ERISA Liability Of Board And ESOP Advisory Committee Members In ESOP Transactions

Lynn Calkins is a Partner and Jessica Farmer is an Associate in Holland & Knight's Washington D.C. office
Louis Joseph and Renee Lewis are Senior Counsel in Holland & Knight's Chicago office


  • A U.S. District Court ruling held that members of a corporate board of directors and an internal employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) advisory committee did not breach their fiduciary duties in connection with an ESOP transaction for a company that ultimately declared bankruptcy.
  • The lengthy decision in Fish et al. v. GreatBanc Trust Company et al. not only provides a detailed view of the inner workings of an ESOP transaction, evaluated by testimony from numerous expert witnesses, but also gives validation to the importance of using thorough, well-documented processes at every step in an ESOP transaction.

On Sept. 1, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued its decision in the Antioch employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) fiduciary litigation. The court held that the Antioch Board of Directors and ESOP Advisory Committee did not breach their fiduciary duties in connection with the 2003 transaction through which Antioch became a 100 percent ESOP-owned company. The lengthy decision not only provides a detailed view of the inner workings of an ESOP transaction, evaluated by testimony from numerous expert witnesses, but also gives validation to the importance of using thorough, well-documented processes at every step in an ESOP transaction.

In the case of Fish et al. v. GreatBanc Trust Company et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-01668, the District Court heard 34 days of trial testimony. The plaintiffs were employees of the closely held Antioch Company who had participated in Antioch's ESOP. The plaintiffs' claims arose from a buy-out transaction at the end of 2003 in which Antioch borrowed money to redeem all of its stock (except stock already owned by the ESOP), resulting in Antioch becoming a 100 percent ESOP-owned company. Five years later, Antioch declared bankruptcy. The plaintiffs sued members of Antioch's ESOP Advisory Committee and Board of Directors, alleging corporate breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the buy-out. The plaintiffs also sued GreatBanc Trust Company, the independent trustee of the ESOP, but the claims against GreatBanc were settled in advance of trial.

The plaintiffs' sweeping claims asserted violations of Sections 404, 405 and 406 of ERISA, challenging the actions taken by the independent trustee as well as the actions taken (and not taken) by individual members of the board and the committee. In a 131-page decision, the court analyzed each of the plaintiffs' claims in light of the facts presented and found in all cases that the members of the board and the committee had no liability and that GreatBanc had not breached any fiduciary duties.

Section 404 Claims

To assess the claims against the members of the board and the committee for purported breaches of the duties of loyalty and prudence under Section 404, the court took a two-step approach: First, the court considered whether the defendants were ERISA fiduciaries for purposes of the transaction. Second, the court considered whether those individuals breached any fiduciary duty.

On the initial point, the court noted that while the ESOP plan document named the committee members as fiduciaries, it also provided that those members did not have any fiduciary duties with respect to the redemption transaction. Instead, under the terms of the ESOP plan document, GreatBanc was designated as the independent trustee, and, as such, GreatBanc and not the committee had the authority to make the decisions relating to the transaction. The court also found that the actions the committee members did take to aid the progress of the transaction (e.g., communicating with participants and amending the ESOP's distribution policy) were ancillary, non-fiduciary actions – insufficient to confer fiduciary status for a Section 404 claim. Ultimately, the court stated that it did not need to decide whether the defendants had a fiduciary duty in connection with the transaction, because, as discussed below, even if they had such a duty, they did not breach it.

On the question of fiduciary breach, the court found that it was clear, based on the "voluminous evidence" presented, that the defendants did not breach any fiduciary duties. The opinion examined two areas of alleged breach: 1) breach of the duty to monitor the trustee; and 2) breach of the duty to inform co-fiduciaries of material information.

The court found that the committee members did not have a duty to monitor the trustee, because they did not have the power to appoint or remove the trustee. Rather, the court concluded that the duty to monitor the independent trustee rested with the board, which did have the power of appointment and removal.

The court then analyzed whether the board had breached its duty to adequately monitor the independent trustee. As a threshold matter, the court noted that there was disagreement about whether one must first prove that the independent trustee breached its fiduciary duty in order to make a case that the board breached its duty to monitor that trustee. However, the court mooted that question by concluding that GreatBanc did not breach its duty. Specifically, the court found that the independent trustee hired top financial and legal advisors, conferred numerous times with its advisors, carefully scrutinized the advisors' conclusions and advice, and then reached its own decision regarding the prudence of the transaction. The court also found it persuasive that the independent trustee negotiated vigorously with Antioch and zealously advocated on the ESOP's behalf.

As support for their arguments of fiduciary breach by the trustee, the plaintiffs, through their trial expert, raised several criticisms of the fairness opinion and the underlying financial analysis provided by the independent trustee's financial advisor. However, these arguments were not persuasive. Based on the facts presented, the court found that the independent trustee followed its process for analyzing the work product provided by its financial advisor, and that the differences between the plaintiffs' expert's views and those of the independent trustee's financial advisor represented nothing more than reasonable differing opinions about the financial information and assumptions made. Where there are simply "two reasonable and skilled analysts making a different judgment," no breach of any ERISA-based fiduciary duty of prudence would be found.

The court then assessed the plaintiffs' claim relating to failure to monitor, concluding that there had not been any breach of the board's duty to monitor the independent trustee. Pointing to the opinions of defendants' expert, Greg Brown, the court found that two meetings between the board and the independent trustee, as well as frequent communications between board members and the independent trustee, were sufficient to provide the board with a "foundational understanding of the nature of GreatBanc's responsibilities, a basic understanding of the work performed by GreatBanc, and an awareness that GreatBanc was acting in the best interests of the ESOP participants." The court rejected the plaintiffs' assertions that the board was required to take a more active role, noting that the trustee must remain independent and that the board cannot inject itself into the independent trustee's decision-making process.

Although ERISA is silent regarding the existence of a duty to inform, plaintiffs argued that the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence required the defendants to inform all co-fiduciaries of any information material to the actions being taken on behalf of the ESOP. The plaintiffs argued that several items that developed immediately prior to the closing of the transaction should have been provided to GreatBanc, including: 1) downside feasibility scenarios and a sensitivity analysis; 2) a pre-transaction plan amendment and change to the ESOP distribution policy; 3) a revised repurchase obligation study; and 4) an updated business plan. The court ultimately concluded that, even assuming that a duty to inform exists under ERISA (the court characterized the defendants' arguments that no such duty exists under ERISA as "strong"), plaintiffs failed to prove that the purportedly missing information would have caused GreatBanc to stop the transaction or renegotiate any of its terms.

Section 405 Claim

In assessing the plaintiffs' claims of co-fiduciary liability under ERISA Section 405, the court determined that there were derivative claims premised upon a breach by the independent trustee, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any underlying breach by GreatBanc.

Section 406 Claim

Finally, the court assessed the plaintiffs' prohibited transaction claims under Section 406 of ERISA. The plaintiffs alleged that Antioch's redemption of the shares held by shareholders other than the ESOP constituted either an indirect sale or exchange between the ESOP and a party in interest within the meaning of Section 406(a)(1), or a use of plan assets for the benefit of a party in interest within the meaning of Section 406(a)(1)(D). Declining to decide whether either of these provisions were applicable to the corporate stock redemption transaction, the court concluded that, even if these provisions of ERISA did apply, because Antioch purchased the outside shareholders' stock for "adequate consideration" within the exemption of Section 408(e), the defendants could not be liable for causing a prohibited transaction under Section 406. Ultimately, the court determined that Antioch paid fair market value for the non-ESOP shareholders' stock, and that the fair market value was determined in good faith by the independent trustee in reliance upon the advice and opinions of its financial expert, which the independent trustee properly analyzed.

Key Takeaways

  • Being designated as a named fiduciary in the plan document is not dispositive of whether one can be liable under ERISA as a fiduciary with respect to a particular transaction.
  • Communications between an ESOP advisory committee and plan participants regarding a proposed transaction and an amendment to the plan's distribution policy do not necessarily confer fiduciary status for an ERISA Section 404 claim. In this case, they were ancillary, non-fiduciary actions relating to a transaction for which the committee members had no discretionary authority.
  • ESOP advisory committee members do not have a duty to monitor the independent trustee if the committee does not have the power to appoint or remove the independent trustee.
  • An independent trustee was found to have fulfilled its ERISA Section 404 fiduciary duties when, in connection with a corporate redemption of non-ESOP held shares, the independent trustee 1) hired top financial and legal advisors; 2) met with and scrutinized the conclusions of those advisors and of the company; and 3) advocated vigorously on the ESOP's behalf.
  • A claim that an independent trustee breached its ERISA Section 404 fiduciary duties cannot be substantiated solely because two skilled financial advisors differed in their analyses of the financial condition of the company.
  • A company's board of directors cannot inject itself into the decision-making process of an independent trustee, but it can satisfy its duty to monitor an independent trustee by engaging in sufficient meetings and communications with the independent trustee so that the board is aware 1) of the actions being taken by and the responsibilities of the independent trustee; and 2) that the independent trustee is acting in the best interests of the ESOP participants.
  • To prove a corporate board violated any duty to inform (assuming that such a duty even exists), plaintiffs must demonstrate that omitted information would have caused an independent trustee to stop a transaction or renegotiate its terms.
  • A claim of co-fiduciary liability against a plan fiduciary under ERISA Section 405 cannot succeed where the independent trustee responsible for the transaction did not breach its own fiduciary duty.
  • There is no prohibited transaction with respect to a corporate redemption of non-ESOP shareholders if no more than adequate consideration is paid for the redeemed shares.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions