In this interlocutory appeal, fiduciaries of a retirement plan appealed the District Court’s certification of a class of participants who alleged the fiduciaries breached their duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). At issue was whether the typicality requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) is satisfied when the class representatives did not invest in each of a defined contribution retirement plan’s available investment options. The Third Circuit affirmed, ruling that because “the class representatives alleged actions or a course of conduct by ERISA fiduciaries that affected multiple funds in the same way, their claims were typical of those of the class.”
