Skip to Main Content

Putnam Investments

Brotherston v. Putnam Investments LLC, et al.
Case No. 1:15-cv-13825 (D. Mass.)

On November 13, 2015, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of participants in the Putnam Retirement Plan (the “Plan”). The lawsuit alleges that the Plan’s fiduciaries (the Defendants in the case) violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to act in the interest of Plan participants and beneficiaries and promoting the business interests of Putnam at the expense of the Plan and its participants.

The lawsuit seeks to recover the Plan’s financial losses and obtain injunctive and other equitable relief. For a copy of the Complaint, click here.

Type of Case

ERISA Violations


Additional Information

What Is A Class Action?

In a class action lawsuit, one or more people, called the “class representatives,” sue on behalf of themselves and other people who have similar claims. Together, this group of people is called a “class” or “class members.” The class representative and the class members together are called the “Plaintiffs.” The companies they sue are called the “Defendants.” The judge or jury resolves the claims for everyone in the class—except those who ask to be excluded from the lawsuit.

How Long Will This Case Take?

Class actions can often take many years.  Please check this page periodically for updates on the case’s status.

How Can I Help?

As part of our investigatory efforts, we are interested in speaking with others who believe they have been shortchanged within their retirement plan.

You may contact us toll free at 1-877-448-0492, write to us at Nichols Kaster, PLLP, 4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, or email our Class Action Clerk, Sean Kelly, at

Case Updates

  • October 15, 2018

    Putnam Investments Update

    On October 15, 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision remanding the case for further proceedings.

  • June 22, 2016

    Putnam Investments Update

    On January 8, 2016, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Both sides then submitted briefs to the court on the merits of the motion. The Court held a hearing on the Defendant’s motions on March 9, 2016, and on April 7, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in full.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Read full Disclaimer.