Subscribe (Free) to
Daily or Weekly Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Retirement Plan Relationship Manager/Consultant

The Retirement Plan Company (TRPC)/an ABG firm
(Remote)

The Retirement Plan Company (TRPC)/an ABG firm logo

Retirement Plan Analyst/Administrator

Compensation Strategies Group, Ltd.
(Remote / Beaumont TX)

Compensation Strategies Group, Ltd. logo

ERISA Counsel

Human Interest
(Remote)

Human Interest logo

Quality Assurance Manager

Nova 401(k) Associates
(Remote)

Nova 401(k) Associates logo

Retirement Plan Quality Assurance

ERISA Services, Inc.
(Remote / Knoxville TN)

ERISA Services, Inc. logo

Senior Plan Administrator

Atlantic Pension Services Inc
(Remote / Kennett Square PA / DE / MD / NJ)

Atlantic Pension Services Inc logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Nicholas Pension Consultants
(Remote / Corona CA / Rancho Cordova CA)

Nicholas Pension Consultants logo

Pension Administrator

Creative Pension Consultants, Inc.
(Remote / Albany NY)

Creative Pension Consultants, Inc. logo

Plan Compliance Analyst (Administrator)

RPA
(Remote)

RPA logo

View More Employee Benefits Jobs

Free Newsletters

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

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile App image LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
Facebook icon

<< Previous news item   |   Next news item >>



Plaintiffs Score Victory Before Supreme Court in Tibble v. Edison
Fiduciary Matters BlogLink to more items from this source
May 18, 2015
"The decision reversed an earlier 9th Circuit ruling that ... a claim involving a plan investment that was initially chosen outside the 6 year window from when a lawsuit is brought could only be viable if there was a change in circumstances that would cause a fiduciary to reexamine the fund's inclusion in the plan. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, finding that under ERISA, there is a continuing duty to monitor and remove imprudent investments. Today's decision also effectively reversed rulings in the 4th and 11th Circuits that were similar to the 9th Circuits.... Different Justices of the Supreme Court showed during oral arguments that they struggled with the question of exactly what this continuing duty to monitor looks like. Rather than resolve the question, they have remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit to decide what the duty to monitor requires and whether the plaintiffs here met that burden to have viable claims. But they did so while also providing important context from trust law." [Tibble v. Edison Int'l, No. 13-550 (U.S. May 18, 2015)]

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).
© 2022 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.