Goucher v. All Children’s Health System, Inc. et al.
Case No. 8:26-cv-01781-VMC-AAS
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
Class Action Complaint + Amendment
Bryson attorneys are pursuing a class action alleging that a breach of duty by fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act has resulted in a massive loss of retirement funds for more than 6,600 individuals. The case, originally filed in June, was amended in July to challenge additional investment decisions and expanded allegations about revenue-sharing fees.
Background
The case, Goucher v. All Children’s Health System, Inc. et al., originally filed June 18, 2206 was amended July 31, 2026 by Jimmy Mintz of Bryson Harris Suciu DeMay. Named defendants include All Children’s Health System, Inc., The Administrative Committee Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, TransAmerica Retirement Solutions, LLC and Creative Planning, LLC. The complaint is being brought by Tamara Goucher, an employee of All Children’s Health System, the owner of All Children’s Hospital, a pediatric hospital affiliated with the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Compliant Overview
All Children’s Health System (“All Children”) created two retirement plans for employees, both governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and managed by fiduciaries.
The amended complaint alleges these fiduciaries breached their duties under ERISA by constructing an investment menu that did not fit the plans’ objectives, leading to a massive loss of savings for more than 6,600 participants.
After creating these retirement plans, All Children delegated investment duties to the Administrative Committee of Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation.
With contribution plans, the fiduciary constructs a menu of investment options for plan participants. To protect participants, ERISA charges fiduciaries with an ongoing duty to monitor trust investments and remove imprudent ones. Failing to remove an imprudent fund is a breach of their duty.
From 2015 to 2025, Defendants steered a large chunk of the retirement plan’s assets into a single asset series: the American Century One Choice Target Date Funds (“American Century TDFs”). These funds were not suitable for the participants’ retirement time horizons or the long-term investment objective, as they followed a glide path that is unusually flat and bond-heavy at all stages until the target year. In the amended complaint (see below), annuities from MetLife, VALIC, and Lincoln Financial were also added.
Defendants admitted this glide path was a “major detractor” to growth but provided no other option to participants until September 2025. A prudent fiduciary would have done so in 2020 or 2021 having noticed the American Century TDFs’ failure to match their peer group’s returns or the Plans’ investment objectives. By retaining them until September 2025, Defendants breached their duties of prudence and loyalty.
National Financial, the broker of the retirement plans, collected excessive revenue-sharing kickbacks from these mutual funds. It then passed the excessive revenue-sharing fees on to Transamerica. These arrangements were party-in-interest transactions, prohibited by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1).
Goucher and the plaintiffs are entitled to a surcharge for the resulting loss to the retirement plans, including the difference between the value of their accounts as they exist today and the value the accounts would have but for Defendants’ ERISA violations.
Factual Allegations
The Defendants failed to follow the plans’ Investment Policy Statement (“IPS”). The Committee adopted an IPS governing both retirement plans in September 2020, and amended them in 2023 and 2025. Until September 2025, the IPS’s objectives included “maximizing return within reasonable and prudent levels of risk,” and “providing returns comparable to similar investment options,” and “controlling administrative and management costs.”
The IPS also provided criteria for selecting the right target date option to meet these objectives, stating that Defendants should compare how a TDF’s asset allocation compares to industry standards for each age group. Defendants chose assets that were incompatible with the ISP’s objective, knowing the American Century TDFs used an ultra-flat glide path that inhibited growth compared to peers.
Defendants also failed to control costs when selecting mutual funds. Their high-priced share classes resulted in excessive revenue-sharing payments to insiders, including Defendant Transamerica. Defendants also failed to control costs when selecting mutual funds.
The following allegations are supported by All Children’s Form 5500 filings, its IPS, and other documents:
- Defendants imprudently select the American Century TDFs and fail to remove them for over a decade.
- Defendants imprudently select more expensive shares of mutual funds over less expensive shares or collective trusts.
- Defendants imprudently choose a MetLife annuity with below-market crediting rates.
- Defendants violate their duty of loyalty and engage in party-in-interest transactions.
Bryson attorneys: Jimmy Mintz (Lead Counsel), Jim DeMay and Scott Harris
Complaint and Media:
Articles Covering the Original Complaint