Navigating Legal Recourse for JEF Shareholders: Strategic Insights in the Wake of ERISA and Securities Fraud Allegations

In recent years, Janus Henderson Fund (JEF) has become a focal point for investor rights litigation, particularly concerning allegations of ERISA violations and securities fraud. Shareholders and plan participants face a complex legal landscape, but emerging precedents and strategic frameworks offer pathways for recourse. This analysis synthesizes actionable insights for JEF stakeholders, drawing on ongoing litigation, Supreme Court rulings, and evolving legal standards.

The Schissler Case: ERISA Violations and Fiduciary Breaches

At the core of JEF's legal challenges is Schissler v. Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc., a class-action lawsuit alleging that the company's 401(k) plan fiduciaries breached their duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs argue that the plan disproportionately included Janus Henderson's proprietary funds, which were characterized by higher fees and underperformance compared to non-affiliated alternatives. A federal judge in Denver rejected the company's motion to dismiss most ERISA claims, affirming that fiduciaries must act prudently and in participants' best interests *Schissler v. Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc.*^[1].

Recent procedural updates, including the withdrawal of prior legal counsel and the appointment of new representation, indicate the case is entering a critical phase. Shareholders should monitor these developments, as a successful outcome could set a precedent for holding financial institutions accountable for conflicts of interest in retirement plan management Janus Henderson 401(k) Case Proceedings^[2].

Legal Strategies for Shareholders: ERISA and Securities Law Frameworks

For investors seeking remedies, two primary avenues exist: ERISA litigation and securities fraud claims under federal law.

1. ERISA Litigation: Lowering the Pleading Threshold
   The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Cunningham v. Cornell University has reshaped ERISA litigation. The decision clarified that plaintiffs need only allege the elements of a prohibited transaction under ERISA Section 406(a)(1)(C) without preemptively disproving potential exemptions. This shift places the burden on defendants to justify exemptions as affirmative defenses, increasing litigation risk for plan sponsors *Cunningham v. Cornell University* (2025)^[3].

For JEF shareholders, this ruling strengthens the viability of claims against fiduciaries who prioritized affiliated funds. As noted in the Schissler case, plaintiffs can now focus on demonstrating concrete injuries-such as lost returns due to imprudent fund selection-without early dismissal based on procedural hurdles ERISA Litigation Risk Post-2025 Rulings^[4].

1. Securities Fraud Claims: Navigating Statutes and Scheme Liability
   Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, shareholders must act swiftly. Recent rulings, including SEC v. Jarkesy and Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, have narrowed the scope of liability for omissions and emphasized the importance of timely filings. However, plaintiffs can assert "scheme liability" to extend the statute of repose for long-running frauds, provided they allege a continuous pattern of misconduct Securities Law Alert: Scheme Liability and Statute of Repose^[5].

JEF investors facing losses tied to undisclosed risks-such as the recent $715 million exposure to First Brands Group-should consult firms like Robbins Geller or Sanford Heisler, which specialize in securities fraud. These firms leverage precedents like the General Electric 401(k) case, where a $61 million settlement was secured for imprudent fund choices General Electric 401(k) Settlement^[6].

Procedural Considerations and Investor Action Steps

• Class-Action Participation: Shareholders should evaluate whether to join the Schissler case or other pending suits. The court's temporary withdrawal of class certification in October 2025 suggests Janus Henderson may challenge the scope of the litigation, but plaintiffs retain the right to refile Class Certification Updates in Schissler Case^[7].
• Statute of Limitations: Under Rule 10b-5, claims must generally be filed within five years of the alleged fraud. Investors should act promptly, especially if asserting scheme liability for ongoing misconduct Rule 10b-5 Statute of Limitations^[8].
• Legal Representation: Firms with ERISA expertise, such as Nichols Kaster or Sanford Heisler, offer tailored strategies. These firms have a track record of securing settlements by proving imprudent investment practices and fee overcharging ERISA Litigation Firms and Precedents^[9].

Conclusion: Strategic Vigilance in a Shifting Legal Landscape

The convergence of ERISA reforms and securities law precedents creates both challenges and opportunities for JEF shareholders. While Janus Henderson defends its practices by citing non-Janus fund options Janus Henderson's Defense of 401(k) Plan^[10], the judicial emphasis on fiduciary prudence and transparency favors plaintiffs who can demonstrate financial harm. Investors must act decisively, leveraging the lowered pleading standards post-Cunningham and the expanded scope of scheme liability.

By staying informed and engaging experienced counsel, shareholders can navigate this complex terrain and hold fiduciaries accountable for decisions that erode retirement savings and investor trust.