Featured Jobs
|
Retirement Relationship Manager MAP Retirement
|
|
Strategic Retirement Plan Consultant Retirement Plan Consultants
|
|
Regional Vice President, Sales MAP Retirement
|
|
Defined Benefit Plan Consultant/Actuarial Analyst Sentinel Group
|
|
DWC - The 401(k) Experts
|
|
Plan Administrator, Defined Benefit & Cash Balance The Pension Source
|
|
Sentinel Group
|
|
MAP Retirement
|
|
MAP Retirement
|
|
Pattison Pension
|
|
BPAS
|
Free Newsletters
“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”
-- An attorney subscriber
|
|
|
Supreme Court Declines to Hear 'Would Have' vs. 'Could Have' ERISA Case
Fiduciary Matters Blog 
June 29, 2015
"The 4th Circuit concluded that the defendants failed to have a prudent process because they failed to consider the best interests of the participants. The question then becomes, once you've shown a failure of procedural prudence, what can the fiduciary prove to show they still made the right substantive choice? The defendants wanted a standard that would have allowed them to put on evidence that a prudent fiduciary COULD have made the same decision. The plaintiffs, and ultimately the 4th Circuit, supported a standard where the defendant must show that a prudent fiduciary WOULD have made the same decision." [Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Comm., No. 13-1360 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014; cert. denied June 29, 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). |