"Petitioners first seek review of the question whether 29 U.S.C. 1113(1) bars claims that fiduciaries violated their duty of prudence under 29 U.S.C 1104(a)(1)(B) by offering imprudent investments as part of an ERISA plan, when the investments were first selected more than six years before the plaintiff filed suit. The court of appeals erred in finding such claims time-barred. ERISA imposes a continuing duty of prudence on plan fiduciaries, and respondents breached that duty throughout the limitations period by continuing to offer higher-cost investment options when identical lower-cost options were available. The court of appeals' decision conflicts with the decisions of other courts of appeals, and the statute-of-limitations issue is an important one. The Court therefore should grant certiorari on that question." [Tibble v. Edison International, No. 13-550 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013; cert. pet. filed Oct. 30, 2013)]

MORE >>