Stifel 401(k) Lawsuit Highlights ERISA Fiduciary Duties And Retirement Plan Risk

On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff Amber Striplin filed a $134 million class action lawsuit against Stifel Financial Corp. (“Stifel”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Striplin, a Stifel employee, alleges that the fiduciaries of the Stifel Financial Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) allowed underperforming funds to remain in the Plan for over a decade, costing the Plan participants invested in those funds hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone retirement savings appreciation.

Specifically, the lawsuit claims the Plan fiduciaries violated the duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) by failing to monitor and remove the American Century Large-Cap Growth Fund (the “American Century Fund”) and the Artisan Mid-Cap Growth Fund (the “Artisan Fund”), both of which were added to the plan in 2014 and continuously lagged their respective benchmarks. The American Century Fund has underperformed the Russell 1000 Growth Index since its inception in 2001 by an average of about 1.41% per year, while the Artisan Fund has similarly underperformed the Russel Mid-Cap Growth Index by 1.4% on average each year.

The complaint explains that such consistent and substantial underperformance can devastate retirement savings and harm 401(k) plan participants through thousands of dollars in lost returns over the course of their careers. The Plan held $2.3 billion in assets as of December 2024. Approximately $160 million was invested in the American Century Large-Cap Growth Fund and $73 million was invested in the Artisan Mid-Cap Growth Fund.

What is the Fiduciary Duty of Prudence Under ERISA?

The fiduciary duty of prudence set forth in ERISA requires those in charge of retirement plans to manage plan investments “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims.”

Courts have generally interpreted this duty as a continuous one, spanning beyond the initial selection of plan investments to encompass their performance over time. In Tibble v. Edison International, the Supreme Court opined that “a trustee has a continuing duty to monitor trust investments and remove imprudent ones. This continuing duty exists separate and apart from the trustee's duty to exercise prudence in selecting investments at the outset.” Moreover, courts take the exercise of fiduciary duties very seriously, often noting that they are among the highest duties known to the law.

What Constitutes Fiduciary Mismanagement?

While courts generally agree about the importance of the fiduciary duty of prudence, determining what constitutes a breach is less clear. To help address misconduct without punishing fiduciaries for normal market fluctuations, courts often rely on two elements: process and meaningful benchmarks.

Because no one can know with certainty how the market or a particular investment will perform in the future, courts focus on how fiduciaries make their investment decisions at the relevant time. This inquiry includes reviewing materials such as committee meeting minutes to evaluate the process behind decisions rather than the outcome of the decisions. Courts have long emphasized that poor performance by itself is not an indicator of imprudence; instead, the issue lies in “whether the individual trustees, at the time they engaged in the challenged transactions, employed the appropriate methods to investigate the merits of the investment and to structure the investment.” Donovan v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984).

However, as information about a fiduciary's process is not usually available to plan participants, courts considering ERISA fiduciary breach complaints ask whether the plaintiff has included meaningful benchmarks in pleading his or her claim. Yet even the importance of meaningful benchmarks in a complaint is not settled, as different courts of appeals have articulated different pleading standards for ERISA claims. For example, the Sixth Circuit has held that a plaintiff is not “required to point to a higher-performing fund to demonstrate imprudence,” Johnson v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 122 F.4th 205, 216 (6th Cir. 2024), while the Eighth Circuit requires plaintiffs to “provide a sound basis for comparison—a meaningful benchmark.” Meiners v. Wells Fargo Co, 898 F.3d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 2018).

Fortunately, the Supreme Court is set to resolve this circuit split, as it recently granted certiorari in Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, a case that addresses the need and use of meaningful benchmarks in pleading imprudent investment claims. The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint due to their failure to identify a meaningful benchmark.

Lessons for Plan Sponsors, Participants, and Litigating Firms

As ERISA fiduciary breach litigation continues to expand in both volume and in complexity, several key lessons have emerged for plan sponsors, plan participants and litigating firms.

• For plan sponsors, the most important lesson from recent ERISA lawsuits is the value of thorough and documented fiduciary process. As discussed above, courts heavily focus on the process underlying fiduciary investment decisions when evaluating claims of breach. Maintaining clear and detailed records of the decision-making process can help establish that fiduciaries acted thoughtfully and in accordance with their duties.
• For plan participants, it is essential to keep copies of plan documents such as the Summary Plan Description and the Investment Policy Statement to understand how fiduciaries are expected to operate. Additionally, if participants suspect a breach, they should consult experienced ERISA counsel to help assess potential claims and navigate building a potential case.
• For litigating firms, carefully evaluating investment performance and indicators of the fiduciary decision-making process is critical to establish a viable claim. ERISA counsel should stay up to date on the opinions rendered in this rapidly evolving area of law and should particularly await the outcome of the Anderson case, as the Supreme Court's decision will establish the standard applied to pleading imprudent investment claims going forward.

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.