[firm] blog logo

Service Providers May Allow Investment in Cryptocurrency, but Plan Administrators Should Proceed with Extreme Caution

Recently, one of the country’s largest retirement plan providers announced they were adding a digital assets account to their retirement plan platform that would allow employers to make cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, a potential investment option for plan participants.  As we previously reported here, prior to that announcement, the DOL had issued guidance cautioning plan fiduciaries to “exercise extreme care” before adding a cryptocurrency option to a retirement plan’s investment lineup or even through a plan’s brokerage window. The DOL guidance went so far as to say that it expected to investigate plans that offer “participant investments in cryptocurrencies and related products, and to take appropriate action to protect the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries with respect to these investments.” The DOL cautioned that plan fiduciaries who allowed cryptocurrency as a plan investment option “should expect to be questioned” about how their decisions to allow investments in cryptocurrency align with their… Continue Reading

Proposed Rule Addressing Fiduciary Duties of Prudence and Exclusive Purpose with Respect to Proxy Voting and the Exercise of Shareholder Rights

The DOL?árecently published a proposed rule (the ?Ç£Proposed Rule?Ç¥) that would amend the current investment duties regulations to provide guidance regarding how plan fiduciaries should exercise their duties of prudence and exclusive purpose with respect to proxy voting and the exercise of shareholder rights. Prior to the Proposed Rule, the DOL had addressed such fiduciary duties in sub-regulatory guidance and individual letters, which did not provide plan fiduciaries with consistent and clear guidance on how they must exercise their duties for proxy voting and other exercises of shareholder rights. Specifically, the Proposed Rule: Codifies the DOL?ÇÖs long-standing position that plan ?Ç£fiduciaries must carry out their duties prudently and solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries and defraying the reasonable expenses of administering the plan?Ç¥ when deciding whether, and when, to exercise shareholder rights, including the voting… Continue Reading

Cross-Plan Offsetting Practice is Challenged in Class Action Lawsuit

This class action lawsuit, styled Scott, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 14, 2020. This lawsuit follows the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Peterson v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. that was issued last year. In Scott, the plaintiffs, who were participants in the plans at issue in Peterson, filed, on behalf of a class of plaintiffs (the ?Ç£Class?Ç¥), a class action against UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, ?Ç£UHC?Ç¥), in their capacities as an insurer and/or third-party claims administrator of employer-sponsored group health plans. The lawsuit alleges the breach of UHC?ÇÖs fiduciary duties under ERISA as related to UHC?ÇÖs practice of ?Ç£cross-plan offsetting.?Ç¥ The Class consists of participants and beneficiaries in all group health plans that are administered by UHC and contain ?Ç£cross-plan offsetting?Ç¥ (collectively, the… Continue Reading

November 2022
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Archives