Aetna $117+ Million False Claims Act Settlement Warning To ERISA Plan Sponsors & Fiduciaries

March 17, 2026

National insurer Aetna Inc., has agreed to pay $117,700,000 to resolve Federal allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by submitting or failing to withdraw inaccurate and untruthful diagnosis codes for its Medicare Advantage Plan enrollees in order to increase its payments from Medicare.

The settlement adds to the growing list of Justice Department enforcement actions and settlements involving leading Medicare Advantage insurers accused of defrauding or engaging in other prohibited conduct dealing with the Medicare program.

These and other payer-focused investigations, prosecutions and settlements alert employer and union sponsored health plans, their sponsors and fiduciaries of the advisability of using prudent processes to verify the compliance of their health insurance vendors or the accuracy of their charges or other data to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and protect themselves and their plans from other avoidable costs and liabilities.

MA Plan Violations

The Medicare Advantage (“MA”) Program, established under Medicare Part C allows Medicare beneficiaries to opt out of traditional Medicare and enroll in private health plans offered by insurance companies known as Medicare Advantage Organizations, or “MAOs.” The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) pays MAOs a fixed monthly amount adjusted for various risk factors that affect expected health expenditures for the beneficiary. In general, CMS pays MAOs more for sicker beneficiaries expected to incur higher healthcare costs. To qualify for these “risk adjustments,” CMS requires MAOs to submit medical diagnosis codes to show their plans cover sicker patients.

The United States alleges that Aetna submitted inaccurate and untruthful patient diagnosis data to CMS in order to inflate the risk adjustment payments it received from CMS, failed to withdraw the inaccurate and untruthful diagnosis data, failed to repay CMS, and falsely certified in writing to CMS that the data was accurate and truthful. The settlement announced on March 12, 2026, resolves these allegations.

“The government pays private insurers over $530 billion each year to care for Americans enrolled in Medicare Advantage,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will continue to hold accountable insurers that knowingly submit inaccurate or unsupported diagnoses to improperly inflate reimbursement.”

The United States contends that, for payment year 2015, Aetna operated a “chart review” program in which it paid diagnosis coders to review medical records (also known as “charts”) and identify all medical conditions that the charts supported. Aetna relied on the results of those chart reviews to submit additional diagnosis codes to CMS to obtain additional payments. However, CMS and the Justice Department claim Aetna’s chart reviews did not substantiate some diagnosis codes previously reported by Aetna to CMS. Aetna did not delete or withdraw those diagnosis codes, which would have required Aetna to reimburse CMS. The Justice Department alleges that Aetna used the results of its chart reviews to identify instances where Aetna could seek additional payments from CMS while ignoring those same results when they indicated Aetna was overpaid.

The settlement also resolves further allegations that, for payment years 2018 to 2023, Aetna knowingly submitted or failed to delete or withdraw inaccurate and untruthful diagnosis codes for morbid obesity to increase the payments it received from CMS for beneficiaries enrolled in its MA plans. The medical records for individuals diagnosed as morbidly obese typically include one or more Body Mass Index (BMI) recordings. Aetna submitted or failed to delete inaccurate and untruthful diagnosis codes for morbid obesity for individuals whose recorded BMI was inconsistent with a diagnosis of morbid obesity, and these codes increased the payments made by CMS.

The civil settlement related to morbid obesity resolves a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue on behalf of the government when they believe that a defendant has submitted false claims for government funds and receive a share of any recovery. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Mary Melette Thomas v. Aetna Inc., et. al., number 24-cv-339 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The settlement in this case provides for the whistleblower, a former Aetna risk-adjustment coding auditor, to receive a $2,012,500 share of the settlement amount.

The investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on using the False Claims Act and other federal health care fraud laws to combat healthcare fraud. While traditionally these efforts have emphasized the investigation and prosecution of civil or criminal claims against health care providers, often at the urging or based on data provided by large health insurance payer entities contracted with Medicare, over the past year the Justice Department and Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) and state regulators have announced a growing series of False Claims Act and other health care fraud charges and settlements against Medicare Advantage, health insurance exchange and other major health insurers participating in Medicare programs.

For example, in January, 2026, the Justice Department announced Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado; The Permanente Medical Group Inc.; Southern California Permanente Medical Group; and Colorado Permanente Medical Group P.C. (collectively “Kaiser”) agreed to pay $556 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by submitting invalid diagnosis codes for their Medicare Advantage Plan enrollees in order to receive higher payments from the government.

The Kaiser settlement resolved allegations that, from 2009 to 2018, Kaiser engaged in a scheme to increase its Medicare reimbursements by pressuring physicians to add diagnoses after patient visits through “addenda” to patients’ medical records. The United States alleged that Kaiser developed various mechanisms to mine a patient’s past medical history to identify potential diagnoses that had not been submitted to CMS for risk adjustment. Kaiser then sent “queries” to its providers urging them to add these diagnoses to medical records via addenda, often months and sometimes over a year after visits. In many instances, the United States alleged, the diagnoses added by the providers had nothing to do with the patient visit in question, in violation of CMS requirements.

The United States further alleged that Kaiser set aggressive physician- and facility-specific goals for adding risk adjustment diagnoses. It alleged that Kaiser singled out underperforming physicians and facilities and emphasized that the failure to add diagnoses cost money for Kaiser, the facilities, and the physicians themselves. It also alleged that Kaiser linked physician and facility financial bonuses and incentives to meeting risk adjustment diagnosis goals.

The United States alleged that Kaiser knew that its addenda practices were widespread and unlawful. Kaiser ignored numerous red flags and internal warnings that it was violating CMS rules, including concerns raised by its own physicians that these were false claims and audits by its own compliance office identifying the issue of inappropriate addenda.

The Kaiser civil settlement includes the resolution of certain claims brought in lawsuits under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Ronda Osinek and James M. Taylor, M.D., former employees of Kaiser. Under those provisions, private parties are permitted to sue on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. The qui tam cases are captioned United States ex rel. Osinek v. Kaiser Permanente, et al., No. 3:13-cv-03891 (N.D. Cal.) and United States ex rel. Taylor v. Kaiser Permanente, et al., No. 3:21-cv-03894 (N.D. Cal.). The relator share of the recovery totaled $95 million.

While the number of settlements and prosecutions against health insurance entities remain relatively small, Medicare Advantage and other health insurance organizations or their affiliates contracted with Medicare’s also have faced a myriad of other False Claims Act or other charges of misconduct. See e.g., Troy Health, Inc. Enters Non-Prosecution Agreement and Admits to Fraudulently Enrolling Medicare Beneficiaries and Identity Theft; Executive Vice President Of Insurance Brokerage Pleads Guilty In $133M Affordable Care Act Fraud Scheme; Health Plus Was Excluded for 10 Years for Failing to Supply Payment Information Required in an OIG Subpoena.

Health Plan Sponsor & Fiduciary Implications

Coupled with the OIG’s recent addition of health care payer-focused projects to its latest compliance plan, however, these prosecutions and settlements should warn health care payers to tighten their controls and other compliance while signaling the advisability of tighter scrutiny of payer vendors by employer and other private health program sponsors and fiduciaries.

Employer and other plan sponsors face obvious financial risks from inappropriate vendor charges and actions. Because ERISA’s duty of prudence obligates plan fiduciaries to act prudently to protect plan assets and provide for proper administration of the plan, health plan fiduciaries also risk personal liability for failing prudent due diligence, contractual, audit, oversight, enforcement and requires plan fiduciaries to prevent plan losses and administrative errors arising from these and other vendor misconduct and performance deficiencies.

If you have questions about this or other health care concerns, contact the author. 

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the  or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations GroupHR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Peer recognized as “Top Rated Lawyer” and “LEGAL LEADER™ “Top Rated Lawyer” and “Best Lawyer” for her work in Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law; ERISA & Employee Benefits,” and “Business and Commercial Law,” Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an A Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) attorneys board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for her more than 35 years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications including leading edge work on PBM, pharmacy and pharmaceutical and other health care, managed care, insurance, and insured and self-insured contracting, design, administration and regulation.. 

Author of numerous highly regarded works on health law and policy, Immediate Past Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee and the current Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and past Group Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. 

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.  As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; third party administrators and other health benefit service providers; hospitals, health care systems and other health care providers, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

She also has extensive experience helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve  sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Section 504, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology,  data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care;  internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement;  and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of publications on “Transparent PBM Contracting,” “ACOs, Direct Contracting: Legal & Practical Challenges For Employers, Providers & TPAs,” “The Medicare Advantage Contracting Manual,” “Third Party Administrator (TPA) Contracting Principles and Strategies and a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations,  Stamer is widely recognized for her thought leadership on PBM and other managed care and health plan contracting and design, and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters.  In addition, Ms. Stamer contributes her time and leadership to numerous policy, professional, civil and other organizations including service as the, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources. 

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often rapidly evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any  fact or law specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2026 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.


Discount Tire Ruling Warns Benefit Plan Sponsors, Leaders & Other Fiduciaries To Ensure Appropriate Plan Investment Monitoring

March 7, 2026

Recent fiduciary litigation clearly warns employer and other plan sponsors, plan committees and corporate officials, trustees and other service providers, and others involved in plan-related decision-making to ensure a well‑documented prudent fiduciary process for selecting and monitoring plan investments, selecting and overseeing service providers empowered to make or influence these decisions, and making other plan decisions.

The Employee, Retirement Income, Security Act (“ERISA”) requires “fiduciaries” to act prudently when making investment decisions, selecting and supervising parties to make investment decisions, or making any other fiduciary decision. See ERISA §404(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §1104(a)(1)(B).

Discount Tire Plan Litigation Illustrates Fiduciary Risks

The March 4, 2026 ruling in McGeathy v. Reinalt‑Thomas Corp., No. 2:25‑cv‑01439 (D. Ariz. Mar. 4, 2026), is the latest of a plethora of rulings highlighting the exposure of these and other parties with named or functional discretionary authority to make or select those responsible for making plan decisions risk from failing to recognize and appropriately manage their fiduciary status and responsibilities.

In McGeathy U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona refused to dismiss a fiduciary breach lawsuit alleging that the parent company of Discount Tire that sponsored the plan, various corporate officials and a trust company service provider were liable as plan fiduciaries for failing properly to monitor and replace underperforming target‑date funds in the company’s retirement plan.

The decision illustrates the willingness of courts to allow ERISA fiduciary claims to proceed against corporate plan sponsors and their officials or others who plaintiffs plausibly allege were fiduciaries and failed to follow a prudent process for reviewing investments or carrying out other discretionary decision-making. See ERISA §404(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §1104(a)(1)(B).

In McGeathy, a participant in the Discount Tire/America’s Tire Retirement Plan alleged that the defendants were plan fiduciaries and breached their duties under ERISA §404(a) by retaining a series of American Century target‑date funds that allegedly underperformed comparable funds for many years.

According to the complaint, the plan included approximately 16,000 participants and more than $1.2 billion in assets, with nearly 44% of plan assets invested in the challenged target‑date funds. The plaintiff alleges fiduciaries failed to prudently monitor and remove the investments despite long‑term underperformance relative to comparable funds.

The defendants argued that investment underperformance alone does not establish a fiduciary breach under ERISA. Some also disputed their fiduciary status relating to the challenged decisions.

The court rejected dismissal at the pleading stage, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged that the defendants were fiduciaries and as fiduciaries or co-fiduciaries may have failed to prudently monitor and replace the funds.

The court also allowed failure‑to‑monitor claims against company officials responsible for appointing and overseeing plan investment decision‑makers under the theory they acted as fiduciaries in selecting and retaining the trustee appointed to make those decisions for the plan. See ERISA §405(a), 29 U.S.C. §1105(a).

The courts ruling allows the case to proceed, requiring the plan sponsor, corporate officials, and trust company to continue to defend the case, pending a settlement or a determination on the facts. Regardless of how a case of merges, the litigation promises to be an expensive lesson, the outcome of which will depend on each defendant ability to demonstrate its prudence in the exercise of any discretion it possessed over the plan or it’s administration with regard to the disputed investments.

The Fiduciary Duty of Prudence

Under ERISA, the term “fiduciary” includes any person or entity that possesses named or functional discretionary authority over the administration or assets of a plan. ERISA §409. Since ERISA defines fiduciary status functionally, a party may not be a named fiduciary to bear fiduciary liability or responsibility. Consequently, many corporate officers and other parties often face fiduciary liability for their functional involvement and investment or other decisions regarding for the plan even though not official officially named as fiduciaries. A fiduciary generally is personally liable for breaches a fiduciary duties that it commits as well as liability as a co-fiduciary for fiduciary act or emissions of another fiduciary that the co-fiduciary through the exercise of prudence New, or should’ve known, was breaching its fiduciary duties and failed to appropriately act to protect the plan, including failure to monitor and manage a fiduciary that it appointed.

ERISA requires fiduciaries to act “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.” ERISA §404(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. §1104(a)(1)(B).

Courts consistently emphasize that ERISA liability focuses on the fiduciary process used to select and monitor investments, not simply on whether investments perform well or poorly.

The U.S. Supreme Court reinforced this principle in Tibble v. Edison International, 575 U.S. 523 (2015), holding that ERISA fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor plan investments and remove imprudent ones within a reasonable time.

Other Recent Cases Reinforce Monitoring Duties

Recent ERISA litigation continues to demonstrate that plan fiduciaries they cannot produce the necessary evidence to show that they acted prudently risk significant personal liability.

In Collins v. Northeast Grocery, Inc., 87 F.4th 125 (2d Cir. 2025), the Second Circuit allowed fiduciary breach claims to proceed based on allegations that plan fiduciaries failed to prudently evaluate investment performance and fees relative to comparable alternatives.

Similarly, in Cunningham v. Cornell University, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court revived claims challenging allegedly excessive administrative and recordkeeping fees and clarified pleading standards applicable to ERISA fiduciary breach claims.

These decisions reflect continuing judicial scrutiny of fiduciary monitoring processes, benchmarking practices, and oversight of investment decisions and the selection, monitoring and management of plan sponsors and their corporate officers and other officials involved in the selection and retention of the service providers and pension investments or provide other services.

This liability often arises or is enhanced by the failure of individuals or entities possessing or exercising discretion over the plan’s assets or administration to appreciate their own fiduciary status and a resulting failure to use the necessary processes to prudently carry out these discretionary duties in a manner that captures the necessary evidence to defend the prudence of their actions.

Compliance Lessons for Plan Fiduciaries

Plan sponsors, fiduciary committees and corporate officers and directors with responsibility or involvement in managing plan, investments, or selection and management of the service providers or company officials responsible for management of investments should consider several risk‑reduction steps.

Plan an investment for other committees, trust companies, investment, advisory organizations, or individuals involved in the discretionary decision-making about the investment and management of plan assets should conduct their activities to create and maintain the necessary, documented evidence of their prudence in their oversight and management of the plans, investments and other activities. As part of these actions, for instance, they should:

• Maintain a structured investment monitoring process with periodic performance reviews.

• Adopt and consistently follow a written Investment Policy Statement.

• Benchmark investment performance and fees against appropriate peer funds.

• Document fiduciary committee meetings and deliberations.

• Monitor market or other conditions that could create a need for reconsideration of investment policies to meet market specific or other emerging conditions and document their decision-making.

Corporate Officers Be Liable as “Functional Fiduciaries” Even When Not Named in the Plan

Another important lesson from this modern ERISA fiduciary litigation is that corporate officers and others involved in making or appointing individuals or service providers to make plan investment or other decisions can become liable as fiduciaries even if not formally named as fiduciaries in plan documents.

ERISA defines fiduciary status based on functions performed, not titles held.

Under ERISA §3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. §1002(21)(A), a person becomes a fiduciary to the extent he or she exercises discretionary authority or control over plan management, exercises authority or control over plan assets, or provides investment advice for a fee. 

Because of this functional fiduciary rule, courts frequently hold that corporate officers, executives, and investment committee members can be personally liable when they exercise discretionary authority over plan investments or the selection or retention of the parties to make those decisions.

In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, for instance, plan participants sued corporate officers responsible for administering the company’s retirement plan.

Participants alleged that corporate insiders knew the company’s stock was artificially inflated but continued allowing the plan to invest heavily in it. The Supreme Court held that corporate officers serving as plan administrators are subject to the same ERISA fiduciary duties as any other fiduciary, rejecting a special “presumption of prudence” for employer-stock investments. 

The decision reinforced that officers who exercise discretionary control over plan investments can face fiduciary liability even when acting in dual corporate roles.

Also, in Donovan v. Bierwirth, the court held corporate officers responsible for managing a company pension plan liable for breach of fiduciary duty when they made investment decisions involving employer stock during a takeover battle.

The Second Circuit held that fiduciaries must act solely in the interests of plan participants and must take steps such as seeking independent advice when corporate conflicts arise. 

The case remains one of the leading precedents establishing that corporate insiders who control plan investments can be personally liable under ERISA.

Likewise, federal courts have also imposed fiduciary liability on corporate insiders involved in employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) transactions.

For example, litigation brought by the U.S. Department of Labor against parties involved in ESOP stock transactions resulted in liability where insiders participated in transactions that caused the plan to pay inflated prices for employer stock. Courts held that individuals involved in the transaction could be jointly and severally liable as fiduciaries or knowing participants in prohibited transactions. 

These cases demonstrate that ERISA liability can extend beyond named fiduciaries to individuals who exercise real control over investment decisions.

This functional fiduciary doctrine significantly expands potential liability exposure.

Corporate executives may become ERISA fiduciaries when they select or retain service providers or named plan fiduciaries, approve or influence plan investment menus, participate in investment committees, select or retain target-date funds or other plan investments or appoint or monitor plan fiduciaries or investment advisors or engage in of influence other plan decisions affecting plan assets or administration.

Even if plan documents designate a committee or outside fiduciary, individuals involved in decision-making may still face liability under ERISA’s co-fiduciary provisions if they knowingly participate in or fail to correct fiduciary breaches.

Acdditional Practical Compliance Lessons for Corporate Leadership

Corporate officers involved in retirement or other benefit plan oversight should take steps to manage their potential liability exposure. Among other things, these steps should include:

  • Ensure plan documents and contracts provide a clear fiduciary governance structure that clearly identifies l who is responsible for plan investment and other decisions.
  • Establish and prudently appoint an investment committe responsible for prudent investment of the plan investments;
  • Require investment committee independence with prudent periodic monitoring and oversight;
  • Investment Committees should meet regularly and prudently decide and review investment performance pursuant to prudent written investment policy.
  • Ensure documented monitoring of plan investments.
  • Maintain benchmarking reports, advisor analyses, and prudent fiduciary deliberations documentation;
  • Periodically review of investment advisors Confirm that advisors are providing objective and appropriate recommendations;
  • Train executives and committee members Ensure individuals understand when their activities may create fiduciary status and their responsibilities.

All parties should understand that ERISA fiduciary liability is determined by what individuals actually do, not by whether they are formally labeled fiduciaries.

Courts consistently hold that corporate officers who exercise discretionary authority over retirement plan investments may be treated as ERISA fiduciaries and held personally liable for imprudent investment decisions or failures to monitor plan investments.

Businesses sponsoring employee benefit plans, and the officers and directors that serve on retirement committees, or in other capacities involved in the selection and retention of committees or service providers appointed to manage plan investments and other operations should recognize their selection authority generally will be considered fiduciary action for purposes of ERISA. Parties involved in these selection and oversight activities should conduct carefully documented processes to demonstrate their prudence in the selection and monitoring of the committee members or service providers that will be performing investment or other fiduciary functions for the plan. hiring processes should include carefully, documented, vetting processes that verify the credentials, performance, processes, fees and other compensation, and other relevant factors necessary to make these engagement of a particular entity or individual to carry out these investment functions prudent. Subsequently, procedure should be implemented and used to periodically monitor and review investment advisors and other service providers.

To meet express requirements of a risk of concerning the parties and trusted with fiduciary responsibilities, all involve parties should affirm that any individual or entity involved in the selection of plan, service providers, or investments, or otherwise performing fiduciary activities, or providing services to the plan are properly vetted for eligibility to serve under the ERISA rules, properly bonded, and otherwise have the credentials and performance history that justifies and trust of these responsibilities under the rules of prudence.

Documentation of fiduciary decision‑making is often critical in defending ERISA fiduciary breach claims. Courts frequently examine committee minutes, benchmarking reports, and advisor recommendations when evaluating whether fiduciaries followed a prudent process. processes of all involved parties should not only seek to exercise and verify prudent decision-making, but also captured the necessary evidence and documentation to defend their determination and actions in the event of a Department of Labor investigation or participant lawsuit.

Bottom Line

The Discount Tire and other similar decisions reaffirm a central principle of ERISA fiduciary law: liability often turns on the quality and documentation of the fiduciary process used to monitor plan investments or other decision-making regarding the plan, it’s service providers and investments, or other aspects of the establishment and administration of the plan.

Plan sponsors and fiduciaries should ensure they maintain a disciplined vendor credentialing, selection and contracting process; investment selection, performance and review process; and retain documentation demonstrating prudent oversight of plan investments and advisors.

Corporations should seek guidance and training from qualified employee benefits counsel as prudently required to understand and perform these responsibilities.

Also since lawsuits and other challenges can arise, despite the most diligent efforts to act prudently, all parties involved also gently should consider the advisability of securing fiduciary liability insurance coverage and appropriate contractional role designation and indemnification to help mitigate potential liability and cost arising from challenges that may arise out of the performance of investment or other related activities.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations GroupHR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Certification, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has more than 35 years experience, advising plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others about fiduciary responsibility and other employee benefit plan design, administration, risk management and compliance. i

Ms. Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law recognized for her experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy on health and other employee benefits, insurance, healthcare, workforce, HIPAA and other data and technology and other compliance in connection with her work with health care and life sciences, employee benefits, insurance, education, technology and other highly regulated and performance-dependent clients.

Ms. Stamer has more than 35 plus years of experience advising and representing, employers, employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries and administrators, their administrative services, technology and other business associates and other vendors, managed care and insurance, health care and other clients about these and other workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and other operations and compliance concerns.  

Ms. Stamer is nationally sought out for her decades of leading-edge experience in the design, sponsorship, administration, and defense of health, severance, savings retirement and other employee benefit, workforce, insurance, healthcare, data and technology, and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability, and advance other operational goals. This experience includes decades of work on ERISA, Internal Revenue Code and other related labor and employment, insurance, corporate and securities, data privacy and security, licensing and other laws. She also sought out for her extensive speaking and publications on these and related concerns.

Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations including current or previous service as Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member for the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section and Chair of its Welfare Plan, Fiduciary Responsibility and Plan Terminations Committees; Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee; Chair and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, Vice Chair of its Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees; and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management and Special Technologies Committees; ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) Council Representative and Scribe for its annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services; International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair; Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair; Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is valued and celebrated for her decades of policy advocacy and charitable, pro bono, community and other service and leadership to promote understanding and strengthening health care, workforce, saving, disability, aging and retirement and other key policies and challenges through her PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.

Ms. Stamer is the author of many highly regarded works published by leading professional and business publishers, the ABA, the American Health Lawyers Association, and others. Ms. Stamer also often speaks and serves on the faculty and steering committee for many ABA and other professional and industry conferences and conducts leadership and industry training for a wide range of organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry, health and other benefits, workforce and other experience and involvements, see the Cynthia Marcotte Stamer P.C. website or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press™

Solutions Law Press™ provides health care, insurance, human resources and employee benefit, data and technology, regulatory and operational performance, and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education. These include extensive resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press™ resources or training.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. Solutions Law Press and its authors reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could change the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. Solutions Law Press and its authors disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2026 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press. ™ For information about licensing for republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.