In the days to come, there will likely be a lot of commentary on the Deere case issued last week by the Seventh Circuit and noted in a previous post here. A couple of commentaries posted already:
“. . . [M]y reading of last week’s decision by Judge Diane P. Wood of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see “Appellate Court Backs Deere Case Dismissal”), suggests that we’re still making the “right” decision—but for the wrong reasons, IMHO.“
“More than a dozen cases against large corporations with virtually identical allegations will be affected by the Deere decision. In some instances, those cases were placed on hold pending the resolution of Deere. This decision is especially important because the Seventh Circuit provides a clear answer rejecting many of the general allegations and theories advanced in the other excessive fees cases. At its core, Deere expressly rejects the alleged need to disclose revenue sharing, finding it not material to participants nor required under then existing law, and provides a complete defense to a claim of “excessive” investment fees where the plan offers a wide range of investments with a wide range of fees in line with those subject to market competition. Although not binding outside the Seventh Circuit (Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana), this opinion will be highly persuasive in other jurisdictions.”