The amended complaints also introduced the S&P Target Date indices as a benchmark to bolster their argument of the BlackRock target-date series' poor performance.
Capital One and Booz Hamilton — both represented by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and both making the same argument — told the court the amended complaints were basically a rehash of the original lawsuits.
In the Booz Hamilton case, for example, the plaintiff "has essentially doubled down on the same implausible allegations as before, while adding a handful of new superficial allegations that do not change the salient analysis," the defendants wrote.
"Plaintiff is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship, and his latest allegations do not and cannot salvage his unsupported and unsupportable claims," they wrote
Citing the judge's dismissal of the original complaint, the Booz Hamilton lawyers wrote that the plaintiff "still does not compare the BlackRock TDFs to any meaningful benchmarks. Instead, he relies on the same four comparator TDFs the Court already rejected."
Using the S&P index as a comparison fails because it is a "mashup" of many target-date funds, they wrote. The index "does not share the same investment strategy, style, risk profile, or asset allocation as the BlackRock TDFs" — the primary reason why the judge dismissed the original complaint when plaintiffs compared the BlackRock target-date series to the four other series, they wrote.
The Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. Employees' Capital Accumulation Plan, McLean, Va., had assets of $7.85 billion as of Dec. 31, 2021, according to the latest Form 5500.
The Capital One Financial Corp. Associate Savings Plan, McLean, Va., had $7.9 billion in assets as of Dec. 31, 2021.