This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Failure to Monitor Fiduciaries and Co-Fiduciary Breaches

Matthew Wehner, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the U.S. Roche 401(K) Savings Plan v. Genentech Inc., the U.S. Roche DC Fiduciary Committe

Published: Aug. 16, 2024 | Result Date: Jan. 12, 2024 | Filing Date: Oct. 2, 2020 |

Case number: 3:20-cv-06894-RS Settlement –  $250,000

Judge

Richard Seeborg

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James E. Miller
(Miller Shah LLP)

Laurie Rubinow
(Miller Shah LLP)

James C. Shah
(Miller Shah LLP)

Alec J. Berin
(Miller Shah LLP)

Ronald S. Kravitz
(Miller Shah LLP)

Monique Olivier
(Olivier & Schreiber LLP)


Defendant

J. Christian Nemeth
(McDermott, Will & Emery LLP)

Margaret H. Warner
(McDermott, Will & Emery LLP)

Alex M. Spisak
(McDermott, Will & Emery LLP)

William G. Gaede III
(McDermott, Will & Emery LLP)


Facts

On October 2, 2020, Matthew Wehner sued Genentech Inc. And the U.S. Roche DC Fiduciary Committee in USDC Northern for Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations and breach of fiduciary duty involving the administration of the U.S. Roche 401(k) Savings Plan.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that defendants failed to properly and appropriately monitor the Plan's investments, retaining imprudent investments thus causing the plan to pay excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations, asserting they were not engaged in any misconduct or wrongdoing.

Result

On June 14, 2021, the trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss one of plaintiff's claim--the failure to monitor and retain prudent investments. Consequently, with only the excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees' claim intact, the parties settled with defendants agreeing to pay a gross settlement amount of $250,000 to the class members.


#142949

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390