ARTICLE
20 January 2026

4th Circuit Questions Class Status In Genworth Financial 401(k) Suit

HB
Hall Benefits Law

Contributor

Strategically designed, legally compliant benefit plans are the cornerstone of long-term business stability and growth. As such, HBL provides comprehensive legal guidance on benefits in M&A, ESOPs, executive compensation, health and welfare benefits, retirement plans, and ERISA litigation matters. Responsive, relationship-driven counsel is the calling card of the Firm.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit seemed to express doubt over the propriety of class status during arguments in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act...
United States Employment and HR
Hall Benefits Law are most popular:
  • within Immigration topic(s)

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit seemed to express doubt over the propriety of class status during arguments in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit by Genworth Financial employee retirement plan participants. The class, which consists of nearly 4,000 members, claims that their retirement savings plummeted due to underperforming BlackRock target date funds.

Two former Genworth employees filed their ERISA suit alleging a breach of fiduciary duties in August 2022. The duo claimed that Genworth had made certain BlackRock funds the default option in its company 401(k) plan based on low fees, despite their poor performance.

On appeal, the panel was considering the validity of an August 2024 class certification decision issued by a Virginia federal court. During the arguments, the judges questioned whether differing injuries of class members based on their various retirement dates caused a lack of commonality across the group to justify certification of a mandatory or "no-opt-out" class. One judge also saw the same grounds as a lack of typicality. According to Genworth's attorney, the lack of a common injury was fatal to the plaintiffs' standing. In its brief, Genworth argued that certification should occur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), rather than Rule 23(b)(1), because some class members experienced higher returns on their BlackRock investments than if they had chosen other investments.

As the arguments continued, one judge also mused how to cut back on the lower court's certification order, pointing out that some class participants had no injuries. Overall, the panel seemed to be skeptical about class certification when some class members lacked any injuries.

The case is Peter Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc., Case Number 24-1880, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More