International Paper - PLANSPONSOR.com

Case 3:06-cv-00703-DRH-CJP Document 2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 35 of 52invest millions, or even billions, of dollars, qualify for “institutional” or “I” shares which chargesubstantially lower fees and which offer Revenue Sharing.145. Simply stated, in presenting a benchmark against which to measure a Fund’sperformance or fees, 401(k) plan fiduciaries must compare apples to apples.146. This is especially true in the complex arena of 401(k) plan investing: While the401(k) plan participants easily would discern the obvious differences between an applebenchmarked against an orange, they would be markedly less likely to appreciate a planfiduciary inclusion of an inappropriate stock in a large cap fund that, while increasing the Fund’sreturn, subjects it to an incompatible level of risk.Defendants’ Misleading Use of Benchmarks147. The Defendants selection and presentation of benchmarks against which theymeasure the Plans’ fees and performance is, and has been, inaccurate and misleading.148. For example, each year the Defendants prepare and provide to participants of thePlans an “IP Savings Plan, The Savings Plan of Choice, A Year in Review” (hereinafter an“Annual Review”).149. In the 2004 Annual Review, in responding to Plan participants’ “Top Question,Why aren’t Fund fees lower?,” the Defendants represented to participants that the Plans’ feeswere “30 to 70% lower than comparable retail mutual fund fees” (emphasis added).Defendants used as a benchmark Morningstar’s average fee data for retail mutual funds, andfurther suggested that the Plans’ funds were higher quality than such retail mutual funds.150. In making these representations, the Defendants failed to disclose that:35