Search the News Archive

Text of DOL Solicitor General Brief in Support of Certiorari Petition in Tibble v. Edison International (PDF)

"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)]

Text of Second DOL Solicitor General Brief to Supreme Court in Tibble v. Edison (PDF)

"Respondents had an ongoing duty of prudence, which included a duty to revisit the plan investments and remove imprudent ones.... [P]etitioners' claims are based not on the initial decision to offer the higher-cost funds as plan investments, but on the breaches of fiduciary duty committed when the imprudent investments remained in the plan ... Under the law of trusts, a trustee must periodically review trust assets and remove imprudent investments, regardless of whether there has been a significant change in circumstances.... The court of appeals effectively exempted plan fiduciaries from a significant aspect of the trust law duties imposed by ERISA once an investment has been in an ERISA plan for six years." [Tibble v. Edison International, No. 13-550 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013; cert. pet. granted Oct. 2, 2014)]

DOL 'Statement of Interest' Supporting ERISA Preemption of CalSavers Program (PDF)

25 pages. "The California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act takes away the freedom of choice that lies at the core of ERISA by forcing employers either to establish their own ERISA plan or to maintain an equivalent plan under the Act.... [The Act] disregards Congress's careful determination that employers should not be required to maintain employee pension benefit plans. Because the Secure Choice Act disregards and runs afoul of ERISA's statutory scheme by effectively requiring employers to maintain such plans, it is preempted by ERISA's broad, express preemption provision that disallows any state laws that 'relate to any employee benefit plan.' " [Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. v. The California Secure Choice Ret. Savings Prog. (CalSavers), No. 18-1584 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019)]

Central States Agrees to Repay Excess Special Financial Assistance Funds

"The Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan (Central States) has entered into a civil settlement agreement pursuant to which it has agreed to repay more than $126.5 million in excess funds that it received from the [PBGC] in connection with the PBGC's Special Financial Assistance Program.... The resolution obtained in this matter was the result of a coordinated effort between the Justice Department's Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, PBGC-OIG and PBGC Office of General Counsel, along with the [DOL] and Department of Treasury."