Vanguard agreed to pay $40 million to settle a potential class-action case over steep capital-gains taxes that hit thousands of investors in the firm’s target-date funds.
In the Nov. 6 preliminary settlement awaiting approval in Philadelphia federal court, the asset management giant did not admit any guilt or wrongdoing. However, the payout would add on to another $6.25 million in fines and restitution against Vanguard in 2022 in the settlement of a case filed by Massachusetts regulators on behalf of investors who absorbed capital gains — and the accompanying tax burden — when the firm opened the lower-cost institutional share classes of the funds to midsize retirement plans it had previously shut out from them in 2020.
Those clients rushed into the cheaper shares in a move described by The Wall Street Journal as an “elephant stampede” that caused the target-date funds to sell 15% of the products’ holdings in transactions saddling taxable-account investors with a capital-gains distribution that was 40 times any previous level, according to the March 2022 lawsuit. Less than a year after reducing the minimum-asset requirement for institutional shares to $5 million from $100 million, the firm merged them together with the retail versions of the funds. That adjustment caused no tax impact, leading experts to question why Vanguard didn’t simply do that in the first place.
“You got these huge capital gains that had to be distributed, and that was really the big problem,” said Daniel Sotiroff, a manager research senior analyst of passive strategies for Morningstar Research Services. “Vanguard actually did kind of mess this one up.”
Representatives for Vanguard didn’t respond to requests for comment on the case or the settlement.
READ MORE: How Vanguard’s tax-bomb target-date funds slammed wealthy investors
It and the plaintiffs had indicated in September filings that they reached agreement in private mediation that month. The investors accused Vanguard and its top executives of breaching their fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting that breach, gross negligence, breaking the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violations of several state laws. In the course of discovery, Vanguard deposed 10 of the plaintiffs and produced 250,000 documents.
The company agreed to the settlement “solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation,” and nothing in it is “an admission or finding of any fault, liability, wrongdoing or damage whatsoever or any infirmity in the defenses that [the] defendants have asserted, or could have asserted,” according to court filings.
“Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, that they have committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability or violation of law,” the “stipulation of settlement” document stated. “Defendants have asserted, and continue to assert, that the conduct was at all times proper and in compliance with all applicable provisions of law, and they believe that the evidence developed to date supports their positions that they acted properly at all times and that the action is without merit.”
In the agreement ordering Vanguard to pay $40 million to target-date investors who paid the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes three years ago, the plaintiffs agreed to take roughly 15% of the “best-case scenario” payment of $259.5 million in damages, according to their filing for approval of the settlement. The settlement agreement limited attorney fees to no more than one-third of the award and capped litigation expenses at $985,000. If the settlement gets preliminary approval, the plaintiffs would then reach out to potential class members for their reaction before seeking the final green light on the agreement.
The cash settlement “provides an immediate recovery to impacted Vanguard [target-date fund] investors and avoids the considerable risks of continued litigation in this complex class action,” the filing stated. “Plaintiffs and class counsel believe that the case has merit, but they recognize the significant risk and expense that would be necessary to prosecute Plaintiffs’ claims successfully through class certification, continued fact and expert discovery, summary judgment, trial and subsequent appeals, as well as the inherent difficulties and delays complex class action litigation like this entails. As previewed in the parties’ class certification briefing, which focused almost exclusively on damages model issues, proving damages would be risky, complicated, and uncertain, involving conflicting expert testimony.”
READ MORE: Vanguard to pay some — not all — of tax bills created for TDF investors
Besides the substantial payout, the case helped remind financial advisors and their clients of the potential risks involved with holding mutual funds in taxable accounts, Sotiroff said. ETFs or separately-managed accounts could help avoid the tax surprises in non-retirement holdings, even though target-date funds may not be as readily available in that form.
“If you’re going to hold a mutual fund, you have to expect that you’re probably going to get some capital gains distributions from it,” Sotiroff said. “You’re always potentially on the hook for a capital gains distribution.”
