The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, recently held that plaintiffs?ÇÖ breach of fiduciary duty claims were not barred by ERISA?ÇÖs six year limitations period, even when the retirement plan investments in question were selected by the plan?ÇÖs fiduciary more than six years prior to plaintiffs?ÇÖ suit. The Ninth Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court?ÇÖs recent decision in this case, which confirmed that fiduciaries have an ongoing fiduciary duty to monitor investments in retirement plans and to remove imprudent ones. (For additional information on the Supreme Court?ÇÖs decision, please see our prior post.) The Ninth Circuit distinguished between a fiduciary?ÇÖs duty to prudently select investment alternatives from the fiduciary?ÇÖs duty to prudently monitor them. Consequently, a fiduciary?ÇÖs ongoing duty to monitor plan investments could result in a series of breaches as an investment alternative is retained over time. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back… Continue Reading
In Tibble v. Edison International, announced on May 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that fiduciaries have an ongoing fiduciary duty to monitor investments in retirement plans and to remove imprudent investments. ?áThe Court held that fiduciaries will not avoid potential liability simply because the six-year ERISA limitations period has run from the time the investment alternative for the retirement plan was originally selected, even if that original selection was prudent. ?áThe Court did not provide any further guidance on what the “duty to monitor” entails and instead remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the fiduciaries in the case satisfied their duty to monitor. ?áThe opinion can be found here.