Coronavirus (COVID-19) News and Resources
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Webcasts
Subscribe to Free Daily Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Enrolled Actuary
Loren D. Stark Company logo
Loren D. Stark Company
(Telecommute)
ESOP Valuation Writer
Unique ESOP Valuation Provider
(Telecommute)

Free Daily News and Jobs

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Get the BenefitsLink app LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook

<< Previous news item   |   Next news item >>



What Tatum v. RJR Teaches About Fiduciary Obligations
Stephen Rosenberg, The Wagner Law Group Link to more items from this source
Sept. 2, 2014
"The working group felt obliged to eliminate the investment option because of questions related to the liability issues of holding a non-diversified single company stock fund, but that is not the same question as whether it was in the best interests of the plan participants to hold, or to instead eliminate, that fund. It is the latter question ... which is primarily one that concerns the risks to the plan sponsor and those charged with running the plan ... Here, the defendants' fiduciary breach occurred because ... they did not investigate or analyze the issue from the perspective of what was best for the participants but instead from the perspective of the risks to the plan sponsor and its designees (i.e., the fiduciaries)." [Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Committee, No. 13-1360 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014)]

Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the link above).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® is providing a hypertext link to the item shown above, but is not the author of the item (unless otherwise specified).
© 2020 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.