Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


March 30, 2004.

COKENOUR, et al., Plaintiff's,
HOUSEHOLD INT'L., INC., et al., Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge


This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion was filed by Defendants Household International ("Household"), the Administrative and Investment Committee of the Plan and its members Edgar A. Ancona, Mary E. Bilbrey, Michael Carlson, Colin P. Kelly and David A. Schoenholz and William F. Aldinger ("Aldinger"), the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Household. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.


  Plaintiff's Michael Cokenour ("Cokenour") and Arthur Ray Herrington, Jr. ("Herrington") were employees of Defendant Household and participants in the Household Tax Reduction Investment Plan ("Plan"), a tax-qualified 401(k) plan. Page 2

  This action is brought by Plaintiff's on behalf of "all participants in the Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the Defendants, for whose accounts the fiduciaries of the Plan made or maintained investments in Household stock through the Household Stock Fund between July 23, 2001 and the present."

  Defendant Household is a holding company with three heads: (1) consumer, which includes consumer lending, mortgage services, retail services and auto finance businesses; (2) credit card, which includes domestic Visa and MasterCard businesses; and (3) international, which includes operations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Household is the sponsor of the Plan at issue. Next, the complaint names as defendants, the Administrative and Investment Committee of the Plan ("Committee") and its members Edgar A. Ancona, Mary E. Bilbrey, Michael Carlson, Colin P. Kelly and David A. Schoenholz (collectively, the "Committee Defendants") and Aldinger, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Household.

  The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") § 3(2)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A), an "eligible individual account plan," within the meaning of ERISA § 407(d)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1107(d)(3), and a "qualified cash or deferred arrangement" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code ("I.R.C.") § 401(k), 26 U.S.C. § 401(k). The Plan is maintained to "enable eligible employees of the Company to acquire Company Stock and to accumulate funds for their future security by electing to make income deferral contributions and by sharing in Company contributions to Page 3 the Plan." Plan art. 1.2. "The Plan also constitutes an employee stock ownership plan that is designed to invest primarily in Company Stock and that is intended to meet the applicable requirements of Sections 401(a), 409, and 4975(e)(7) of the [Internal Revenue] Code and Section 407(d)(6) of ERISA. " Id

  With the Plan in place, eligible Household employees are allowed to contribute to the Plan through deductions from their paychecks. The participating employees may direct the investment of their contributions to one or more of several available Plan funds. These investment options are mostly diversified mutual funds, but participating employees who desire to invest in Company Stock may do so through an investment option designed for that purpose, the Household International, Inc, Common Stock Fund (the "Household Stock Fund"). The Plan requires Household to match the participating employee's contributions at specified percentages by making contributions to the participating employees' accounts in the Household Stock Fund. These matching contributions can be made either in Household common stock or cash. Plan art 11.1, The matching contributions are primarily invested in Household Stock, "except for the short term investment of cash." Trust Agreement art. 9.

  In October 2002, Household paid $484 million to settle widespread charges of suspect lending practices. This settlement, described as "the largest consumer settlement in history," resulted in a $525 million charge to Household's earnings. As a result, Household allegedly engaged in improper accounting practices and restated its earnings for at least an eight year period, spanning 1994-2002. The Page 4 complaint further alleges that this caused an overstatement of pre-tax income by approximately $610 million in defendant Household's favor. On March 18, 2003, things worsened for Household as they consented to an S.E.C. issued Order Instituting Cease and Desist Proceedings, Making Findings and Imposing Cease-and-Desist Order pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to Household's account re-aging practices and disclosures. This Order found, in relevant part, that Household restructured a far higher volume of delinquent loans than its peer lenders, and implemented a policy of automatically restructuring delinquent loans, often without contacting the borrower. The Order thus held that Household failed to accurately disclose its restructuring policies, and the disclosures made were nevertheless materially misleading.

  While defendant Household was engaged in this questionable behavior, the fiduciaries of the Plan continued to offer the Household Stock Fund as a 401(k) retirement investment to participating employees. These Plan fiduciaries never withdrew the Household Stock Fund as an option, nor did they choose to make the Household matching contributions in cash rather than Stock, nor did they provide the participating employees with the truth concerning the artificially inflated value of defendant Household Stock and the risks associated with continuing to have more than 60% of the Plan's assets invested in said Stock. As a result of these acts or omissions by the Plan fiduciaries, the Plan, with thousands of participating employees, experienced a loss in the hundreds of millions of dollars once defendant's Household's questionable practices were exposed. Page 5

  The Plaintiff's filed a four count class action complaint against the above-named defendants. Count I alleges the Committee Defendants failed to prudently manage the Plan assets by continuing to offer Household Stock as a retirement investment when they knew it was imprudent. Count n alleges the Committee Defendants failed to provide complete and accurate information to Plan participants concerning then-retirement investment in Household Stock. Count III alleges that Household and defendant C.E.O. Aldinger failed to properly monitor the Committee Defendants, including by failing to provide them with crucial information regarding the value of Household Stock. Count IV alleges that Household breached its duty to manage Plan assets by continuing to provide the Household matching contributions in Household Stock rather than cash. Defendants responded to each of the four counts by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).


  In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must draw all reasonable inferences that favor the plaintiff, construe the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accept as true all well-pleaded facts and allegations in the complaint. Thompson v. Illinois Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2002); Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463, 466 (7th Cir. 1991). The allegations of a complaint should not be dismissed for a failure to state a claim "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support Page 6 of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Nonetheless, in order to withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege the "operative facts" upon which each claim is based. Kyle v. Morton High School, 144 F.3d 448, 444-45 (7th Cir. 1998); Lucien v. Preiner, 967 F.2d 1166, 1168 (7th Cir. 1992). The plaintiff need not allege all of the facts involved in the claim and can plead conclusions. Higgs v. Carter, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2002); Kyle, 144 F.3d at 455. However, any conclusions pled must "provide the defendant with at least minimal notice of the claim, "Id., and the plaintiff cannot satisfy federal pleading requirements merely "by attaching bare legal conclusions to narrated facts which fail to outline the bases of [his] claim." Perkins, 939 F.2d at 466-67


 I. Fiduciary Duty

  Defendants first argue that none of the Defendants are fiduciaries and thus they cannot have breached a fiduciary duty. Plaintiff's correctly point out that every ERISA plan requires a named fiduciary and that even persons not named as fiduciaries can be considered functional fiduciaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1) & (2); 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). Also, the definition of fiduciary under ERISA shows that this issue is not as clear cut an issue as Defendants would have this court believe. Section 3(21) of ERISA states the following: Page 7

Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), a person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent (i) he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets, (ii) he renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of such plan, or has any authority or responsibility to do so, or (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan. Such term includes any person designated under section 1105(c)(1)(B) of this title.
29 U.S.C. § 1002. Plaintiff's allege that the Committee Defendants were named fiduciaries and were responsible for monitoring the investments of the Plan and Plaintiff's have made other allegations of involvement with the Plan in a position of trust. We agree with Plaintiff's that the allegations do not conclusively show that the Defendants were not fiduciaries with respect to the monitoring of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.