UnitedHealth Group is confronting two high-stakes legal challenges that expose deeper failures in fiduciary oversight. The first—a $69 million settlement finalized in June 2025—resolves allegations that the company violated ERISA by retaining underperforming Wells Fargo target-date funds in its 401(k) plan, allegedly to protect a broader business relationship.
The second is a proposed securities class action accusing UnitedHealth of misleading investors in the aftermath of CEO Brian Thompson’s December murder. Plaintiffs claim the company reaffirmed aggressive earnings guidance despite internal shifts driven by mounting public and regulatory pressure.
At the center of both cases is a breakdown in fiduciary duty. ERISA mandates an uncompromising standard of loyalty and prudence in the management of employee benefit plans. But the law’s principles resonate beyond retirement plans. When corporate leadership prioritizes reputational or financial insulation over candor, the risk of fiduciary breach extends to shareholders. UnitedHealth’s legal exposure illustrates how the ERISA framework, built to protect plan participants, offers a broader lens on accountability, one that aligns fiduciary conduct with long-term corporate integrity.
ERISA Breaches and the Largest 401(k) Settlement in History
In Snyder v. UnitedHealth Group, the heart of the claim was the continued use of Wells Fargo target-date funds in the company’s 401(k) plan despite those funds significantly underperforming their benchmarks for more than a decade. The plaintiffs argued that UnitedHealth and its fiduciaries failed to act solely in the interest of plan participants when they chose not to remove or replace the lagging investment options.
What made the case notable wasn’t just the poor performance of the funds, but the alleged reason they remained. According to the complaint, UnitedHealth preserved the Wells Fargo relationship to protect its broader business ties. Specifically, Wells Fargo was purchasing health insurance from UnitedHealthcare, creating a potential conflict between the company’s fiduciary obligations to plan participants and its corporate interest in maintaining a key customer relationship. That conflict, the plaintiffs argued, compromised the objectivity required by ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty.
The settlement reached in June 2025 was historic. At $69 million, it represents the largest known recovery for mismanagement in a single defined-contribution plan.
ERISA’s duties are not flexible or aspirational. They are enforceable, and courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize relationships that suggest even the appearance of conflicted decision-making. The notion that a fund lineup can be shaped by business partnerships or cross-selling incentives fundamentally misapprehends the statute. Even in large, complex organizations with layered interests, the fiduciary’s responsibility is singular: act solely in the interest of plan participants.
Misuse of 401(k) Forfeitures: A Second Front in Fiduciary Failures
In Kotalik v. UnitedHealth Group, plaintiffs launched a second ERISA class action targeting the company’s handling of forfeited funds within its $22 billion 401(k) plan. The complaint alleges UnitedHealth and its fiduciaries violated multiple provisions of ERISA by using over $19 million in forfeitures to offset employer contributions instead of applying those funds to legitimate plan expenses.
ERISA requires fiduciaries to manage plan assets solely for the benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries. Forfeitures, which arise when employees leave before vesting fully in employer contributions, are plan assets. They cannot be redirected for employer gain. The plaintiffs argue that UnitedHealth’s cost-saving approach diverted value away from participants and fundamentally misused assets that should have been reinvested into the plan.
The financial impact is substantial. By failing to credit these funds toward plan expenses or redistribute them proportionally, the plaintiffs estimate participants lost more than $25 million in compounded investment value.
For large employers, the case underscores the importance of explicitly documenting how forfeitures are applied and ensuring plan documents align with actual fiduciary practice. The law permits the use of forfeitures to reduce employer contributions or pay reasonable plan expenses. But the fiduciary must follow a consistent, participant-focused process in doing so.
The CEO’s Murder, Investor Misinformation, and Strategic Disclosures
The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024 ignited a public and political firestorm aimed squarely at the health insurance industry. Thompson’s death came just days after a Senate report highlighted how the largest Medicare Advantage providers, including UnitedHealth, used artificial intelligence to deny care to seniors. The timing intensified scrutiny of the company’s business model and elevated long-standing criticisms into a national conversation.
Rather than recalibrating its public guidance, UnitedHealth doubled down. On December 3—one day before Thompson’s killing—the company issued its 2025 earnings projection, anticipating net earnings of $28.15 to $28.65 per share and adjusted net earnings as high as $30. Weeks later, amid mounting backlash, UnitedHealth reaffirmed those same targets on January 16. That decision, now the centerpiece of Faller v. UnitedHealth Group, forms the basis of a shareholder securities fraud claim in the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs allege the company misled investors by failing to disclose that its post-crisis strategy would shift materially. By April, UnitedHealth reversed course and announced a softening of its aggressive cost containment practices, including changes to utilization management in Medicare Advantage. The announcement sent the company’s stock plummeting by more than 22%, a direct hit to investors who had relied on the January forecast.
While Faller centers on omissions and misstatements, the case also surfaces deeper questions of fiduciary behavior. UnitedHealth’s decision to maintain guidance amid clear operational headwinds reveals a tension between short-term market confidence and long-term transparency. The legal claim focuses on investor deception, but the underlying facts reflect a broader breakdown in stakeholder accountability.
Corporate fiduciaries—whether under ERISA or securities law—owe duties rooted in truthfulness and loyalty. When executive leadership withholds material shifts in strategy, particularly in response to regulatory pressure or reputational risk, the damage ripples far beyond the investor class. It undermines market integrity and erodes confidence in management’s willingness to act with candor in the face of volatility.
Faller may not be an ERISA case, but its core concern—how institutional actors balance financial performance with duty—mirrors the same fiduciary failures underpinning UnitedHealth’s 401(k) litigation. The doctrine may differ, but the conduct echoes a common theme: opacity where there should be clarity, and loyalty compromised by expedience.
ERISA’s Broader Role in Corporate Accountability
The lawsuits against UnitedHealth reveal a governance pattern where fiduciary obligations were subordinated to corporate strategy. In Snyder, conflicted investment decisions served broader business interests. In Kotalik, forfeiture funds were allegedly repurposed to reduce employer contributions. In Faller, the company maintained public earnings projections despite an internal shift in strategy triggered by reputational and regulatory pressure. Each case reflects the same failure—duty to stakeholders was treated as secondary to protecting enterprise value.
ERISA’s fiduciary standards offer more than plan oversight. They create a durable framework for decision-making under pressure. These standards demand not just care, but courage: to act transparently, to reject conflicts, and to prioritize those the fiduciary serves.
For large employers, particularly those managing health plans, retirement benefits, and investor disclosures, the message is simple. ERISA compliance is not a discrete risk area—it’s an indicator of institutional discipline. Plan sponsors who cut corners on fiduciary process often reflect the same behavior elsewhere in the organization.
A Fiduciary Reckoning
UnitedHealth’s legal exposure offers a sharp reminder that fiduciary obligations are not administrative checklists. They are a measure of institutional integrity. The ERISA violations alleged in Snyder and Kotalik were not technical errors. They were strategic decisions that placed corporate priorities above the interests of plan participants.
Similarly, the shareholder claims in Faller center on public statements that maintained investor confidence while masking internal upheaval. Across all three matters, the breach was not just legal—it was ethical.
Fiduciary duties, whether grounded in ERISA or securities law, rest on the same foundation: act with care, act in good faith, and act for the benefit of others. That standard does not shift based on audience. Retirees, shareholders, employees—each is owed the same core obligations. When companies treat those duties as conditional, the result is not just litigation. It’s erosion of trust.
For corporate counsel, compliance officers, and plan fiduciaries, the lesson is direct. Systems must be built to withstand not only regulatory review but institutional pressure. Conflicts must be surfaced and resolved, not buried in business rationale. Disclosures must reflect substance, not spin.
The cases against UnitedHealth mark more than a legal reckoning—they mark a fiduciary one. And for those paying attention, they make clear that legal risk begins where fiduciary rigor ends.
