Frederick Rozo, on behalf of himself and a class of plan participants who deposited money into the PFIO, sued Principal under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), claiming that it (1) breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty by setting a low interest rate for participants and (2) engaged in a prohibited transaction by using the PFIO contract to make money for itself.

Section 1104(a)(1)(A) requires “a fiduciary [to] discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and—(A) for the exclusive purpose of: (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan.” Section 1106(b)(1) prohibits a fiduciary from “deal[ing] with the assets of the plan in his own interest or for his own account.” Principal moved (1) to exclude the opinions and testimony of one of Rozo’s experts, (2) to decertify the class, and (3) for summary judgment.

Turning to more factually similar cases, some of our other sister circuits have recognized that “ERISA does not create an exclusive duty to maximize pecuniary benefits.” Collins v. Pension & Ins. Comm.

The First and Fifth Circuits, respectively, also understand the duty of loyalty to “require ... that the fiduciary not place its own interests ahead of those of the [p]lan beneficiary,” Vander Luitgaren v. Sun Life Assur.

The court concluded: Principal’s actuaries estimated this deduct through studies of its risk management activities and stochastic analyses of the potential market value losses associated with plan lapses (departures) for products with a 12-month put.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, I, CHRISTOPHER T. MICHELETTI, member of the firm Zelle LLP, hereby move this Court for an Order for admission to practice pro hac vice to appear as counsel for Plaintiff SK8-BRD-BMX INC. in the above-captioned action.

I submit this declaration in support of my motion for admission to practice pro hac vice in the above-captioned action.

L JORGE E. NAVARRETE, Clerk and Executive Officer of the Supreme Court of the State of California, do hereby certify that CHRISTOPHER THOlvfAS A11CHELETTI, #136446, was on the 7th day of December 1988, duly admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in all the courts of this state, and is now listed on the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the bar of this state in good standing.

The motion of Christopher T. Micheletti for admission to practice pro hac vice in the above-captioned action is granted.

Applicant has declared he is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of California; and that his contact information is as follows: Christopher T. Micheletti

Case: 20-17139, 02/02/2022, ID: 12358319, DktEntry: 50, Page 1 of 1

U.S. District Court for Northern California, San Francisco

The judgment of this Court, entered October 26, 2021, takes effect this date.

This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

D.C. No. 3:17-md-02796-CRB Northern District of California, San Francisco

The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc.

* The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge

for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.