From Forbes.com yesterday:

In the war over hidden and excessive 401(k) fees, investors may have won a battle in Illinois.

Caterpillar, the heavy equipment manufacturer in Peoria, Ill. has agreed to settle a class action alleging that employees and retirees in its 401(k) plans were overcharged by potentially millions of dollars.

If a federal judge and independent fiduciary approve the deal the parties struck, Caterpillar will pay $16.5 million to settle the case. More importantly, it has agreed to make changes to its 401(k) plan that could potentially save employees millions of dollars. More important still, it may set a precedent for other companies to follow . . . .

The Caterpillar plan’s record-keeping fees would be limited, according to the memorandum on file with the court. Record-keeping fees can add substantially to investor costs. The fees are often based on assets under management, so an investor pays more as his or her balance increases. At Caterpillar, such fees will henceforth be calculated on a flat or per-participant basis . . . .

The settlement is a rare victory for investor advocates. In February, in a 401(k) case against Deere & Co., a federal appeals court judge ruled in favor of the employer. Jerome Schlichter, the plaintiffs’ attorney with Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, who handled both the Caterpillar and Deere suits, has sued a dozen other companies over their 401(k) plans, including Exelon, General Dynamics  and International Paper. He says he is appealing the Deere case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is already hearing a separate case, Jones vs. Harris Associates, which involves the question of whether mutual funds over-charge for their services.

It might be appear to be common sense for companies to engage in these types of disclosures with regard to plan fees, but litigation is proving that such is not the case.

William Birdthistle (Chicago-Kent) and I previously wrote an amicus brief in the Hecker v. Deere case that is referred to above and it discusses some of these very inequities that currently exist in the way participants in 401(k) plans are charged for mutual fund fees.  I have also joined an amicus cert. brief in the Deere case which will be filed this Monday.

Who knew that the commissioner of the NFL was such a labor law aficionado?  From Yahoo! News and the AP:

Frustrated by court decisions that blocked the suspension of two football players who tested positive for banned substances, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is asking Congress for help.

“We believe that a specific and tailored amendment to the Labor Management Relations Act is appropriate and necessary to protect collectively bargained steroid policies from attack under state law,” Goodell said in testimony prepared for a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing Tuesday.

Recent court decisions “call into question the continued viability of the steroid policies of the NFL and other national sports organizations,” Goodell said.

I have written previously about the interesting state law questions lurking in the case concerning the suspension of two Minnesota Viking players.

Joe Seiner (South Carolina) brings to my attention a very important development in the world of civil procedure and employment discrimination law.

David Ingram of the National Law Journal reports:

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the 5-month-old U.S. Supreme Court decision that has become a thorn in the side of the plaintiffs bar, will get a Capitol Hill airing on Tuesday.

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold the first congressional hearing on the far-reaching May ruling, which raised the pleading standard for most civil complaints, making it more difficult to keep cases from being thrown out.

The hearing isn’t likely to be the last time Congress weighs in on the matter. Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., has sponsored legislation to return to an earlier pleading standard, and he wields the gavel in a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

Because so much is at stake for both trial lawyers and the business community, I would not be surprised if this is the first many salvos on what exactly must be proven to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.  Additionally, because many of the lawsuits involved concern employment discrimination plaintiffs, this goes right to the heart of whether those complaining of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace can get their case heard of the merits.