In Tibble vs. Edison Int'l, the US Supreme Court addressed how and when plaintiffs can sue ERISA plan fiduciaries for imprudent investment selections. The Court held that, even though a challenge to the original selection of an investment option expires after six years, plaintiffs may still have a claim for a breach of the duty to monitor. The Court declined, however, to explain what the duty to monitor entails.
Although the Court’s holding may appear to expand fiduciary liability, the decision does little to alter the expectations and obligations of sophisticated companies, which generally engage in routine monitoring of ERISA-governed plans.
There is much to be learned from the Supreme Court’s decision in Tibble.
Please join us as we discuss:
- What the holding in Tibble means for plan sponsors and fiduciaries
- How the duty to monitor may be developed by the lower courts
- What sponsors and fiduciaries can do to reduce litigation exposure