In its new ruling, the Supreme Court explains that the act of determining whether petitioners state plausible claims against plan fiduciaries for violations of ERISA’s duty of prudence requires “a context-specific inquiry of the fiduciaries’ continuing duty to monitor investments and to remove imprudent ones, as articulated in Tibble v. But following its review of the case and the parties’ oral arguments, the Supreme Court has unanimously determined that the 7th Circuit in fact “erred in relying on the participants’ ultimate choice over their investments to excuse allegedly imprudent decisions by. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the petitioners’ allegations failed as a matter of law. Initially, the district court hearing the case granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss-a ruling which the 7th U.S. Specifically, the plaintiffs in the case sued the defendants for allegedly breaching ERISA’s duty of prudence in the following three ways: failing to monitor and control recordkeeping fees, resulting in unreasonably high costs to plan participants offering mutual funds and annuities in the form of “retail” share classes that carried higher fees than those charged by otherwise identical share classes of the same investments and offering options that were likely to confuse investors. The question before the high court was whether participants in a defined contribution (DC) ERISA plan stated a plausible claim for relief against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence by alleging that the plan sponsor fiduciaries caused the participants to pay investment management and administrative fees higher than those available for other materially identical investment products or services. Supreme Court has issued a highly anticipated ruling in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit known as Hughes v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |