Quigley et al v. ConocoPhillips Company et al

On January 18, 2023, John E. Quigley and Frances Quigley (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of the ConocoPhillips Savings Plan (the “Plan”) and all others similarly situated, represented by Robert A. Izard and Douglas P. Needham of Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP; Mark G. Boyko and Gregory Y. Porter of Bailey & Glasser; and James L. Colvin III of Latham Wagner Steele & Lehman PC, filed a class action lawsuit against ConocoPhillips Company (“ConocoPhillips”), the ConocoPhillips Company Benefits Committee, and its individual members (“the Committee”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and deprivation of employee benefits. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, with Judge Scott L. Palk presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs claimed, “Plaintiffs are participants in the Plan. They bring this action on behalf of the Plan and a class of participants in the Plan whose retirement assets were invested in the ‘Phillips 66 Stock Fund’ or the ‘Phillips 66 Leveraged Stock Fund’ (the ‘Phillips 66 Funds’ or ‘Funds’) from January 18, 2017 to the date of judgment in this Action (the ‘Class Period’).”

The plaintiffs alleged that “Defendants improperly allowed the Plan to offer the Phillips 66 Funds as investment options for the Plan, even though they knew that the Funds were undiversified and had an established track record of being more volatile and riskier for Plan Participants than prudently diversified alternative investment options, without any expectation of higher returns. Defendants failed to liquidate the Funds’ substantial holdings in Phillips 66 common stock thereby subjecting the Plan and its participants to the risks associated with being too heavily invested in one company (‘company risk’) and one industry (‘industry risk’).”

The plaintiffs further alleged, “The Plan’s overly concentrated position caused the Plan and participant Plan accounts to lose over $260 million as the price of Phillips 66 stock fell during the Class Period relative to the performance of prudent alternatives, including diversified US Stock Funds, into which Defendants should have transferred the Phillips 66 stock because it offered demonstrably lower risk without sacrificing any expected return. As a result of these breaches, each Defendant is liable to the Plan for all losses resulting from each of their breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also seek equitable relief.”

Plaintiffs presented two claims for relief, including alleged breach of fiduciary duty and co-fiduciary liability. 

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiffs requested a judgment declaring that the defendants have breached their Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary duties to the participants as well as injunctive relief against further breach. Plaintiffs also requested an award of actual and compensatory damages together with costs of litigation. 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.