The Third Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing a class action lawsuit brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Prudential Insurance Company of America and several investment oversight officials. The case, *Young Cho v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America*, was filed on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and submitted for review on Dec. 11, 2025.
Young Cho, a former Prudential employee who participated in the company's employer-sponsored defined contribution retirement plan, filed the lawsuit individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons. The suit was brought on behalf of the Prudential Employee Savings 401(k) Plan and names multiple defendants including the Prudential Insurance Company of America, the Prudential Investment Oversight Committee, and several individual committee members.
The defendants in the case include Bellwether Consulting LLC, an investment consulting firm, and individual Investment Oversight Committee members Lucien Alziari, Sara Bonesteel, Gary Neubeck, Scott Sleyster, and Sharon Taylor. The original lawsuit was filed in 2019 in the District Court for the District of New Jersey under case number 2:19-cv-19886, with District Judge Jamel K. Semper presiding.
According to the Third Circuit filing, Cho alleges that Prudential breached its fiduciary duty and failed to monitor its own fiduciaries due to what the complaint describes as "deficiencies in Prudential's" management practices. The specific nature of these alleged deficiencies and the full scope of the claims were not detailed in the available court documents.
The case represents a significant challenge to how large corporations manage their employee retirement plans under ERISA regulations. ERISA, enacted in 1974, establishes minimum standards for pension and health plans in private industry and imposes fiduciary responsibilities on plan sponsors and administrators. Under ERISA, plan fiduciaries must act prudently and solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries.
Class action lawsuits involving 401(k) plans have become increasingly common in recent years, with employees challenging various aspects of plan management including excessive fees, poor investment options, and inadequate oversight. These cases often involve complex questions about fiduciary duties and the standard of care required for retirement plan management.
The Third Circuit panel hearing the appeal consists of Circuit Judges Krause, Phipps, and Fisher. The court issued an opinion on Jan. 9, 2026, though the document indicates it is "not precedential" and does not constitute binding precedent under the court's Internal Operating Procedures.
The case involves multiple layers of potential liability under ERISA's fiduciary framework. Plan sponsors like Prudential have primary responsibility for selecting and monitoring plan investments and service providers. Investment committees and their individual members can face personal liability for breaches of fiduciary duty if they fail to act prudently in their oversight role.
Bellwether Consulting's inclusion as a defendant suggests the case may involve allegations related to investment advisory services provided to the plan. Investment consultants can be considered fiduciaries under ERISA depending on their role and the discretionary authority they exercise over plan assets.
The progression of this case from district court to the federal appeals level indicates the parties disagreed significantly about the lower court's handling of the matter. Appeals in ERISA cases often focus on questions of law regarding fiduciary standards, the scope of duties owed to plan participants, and the adequacy of plan oversight procedures.
For Prudential's current and former employees who participated in the 401(k) plan, the outcome of this appeal could have important implications for any potential recovery of losses allegedly caused by fiduciary breaches. Class action settlements in similar ERISA cases have sometimes resulted in significant compensation for affected participants and changes to plan management practices.
The timing of the appeal, with submission in December 2025 and an opinion filed in January 2026, suggests the Third Circuit prioritized review of the case. The court's designation of the opinion as "not precedential" indicates that while the ruling will resolve the dispute between these parties, it will not create binding legal precedent for future cases.
Employer-sponsored retirement plans like 401(k) plans play a critical role in retirement security for millions of American workers. Cases like *Cho v. Prudential* help establish standards for plan management and provide accountability mechanisms when fiduciaries allegedly fail to meet their obligations to plan participants.
The case continues the ongoing legal scrutiny of corporate retirement plan management practices and highlights the complex regulatory environment surrounding employer-sponsored benefits under ERISA.