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

Featured Jobs

Combo Plan Administrator

Pollard & Associates
(Remote)

Pollard & Associates logo

Defined Contribution Account Manager

Nova 401(k) Associates
(Remote)

Nova 401(k) Associates logo

RP-Client Service Associate

Greenline Wealth Management
(FL / Hybrid)

Greenline Wealth Management logo

TPA Retirement Plan Consultant

EPIC RPS (TPA/DPS)
(Remote)

EPIC RPS (TPA/DPS) logo

Defined Benefit Combo Cash Balance Compliance Consultant

Loren D. Stark Company (LDSCO)
(Remote)

Loren D.  Stark Company (LDSCO) logo

Defined Benefit Consultant/Enrolled Actuary

Pension Plan Specialists, PC
(Vancouver WA)

Pension Plan Specialists, PC logo

Senior Plan Administrator

Retirement Planners and Administrators (RPA)
(Remote)

Retirement Planners and Administrators (RPA) logo

Retirement Plan Consultant

Great Lakes Pension Associates, Inc.
(Remote)

Great Lakes Pension Associates, Inc. logo

Compliance Officer

New York City District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds
(New York NY)

New York City District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds 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 icon
LinkedIn icon     Twitter icon     Facebook icon

Plaintiffs Score Victory Before Supreme Court in Tibble v. Edison
Fiduciary Matters Blog Link 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 linked news item's title).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® created this link to the news item, but we are not the news item's author (unless expressly shown above).
© 2024 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.