On May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tibble v. Edison International, reinforcing that fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor the prudence of plan investments.Tibble overturned the Ninth Circuit’s holding that fiduciary breach claims involving certain funds were time-barred under ERISA’s six-year statute of limitations. Under ERISA Section 413, the statute of limitations for fiduciary breach claims runs from “the last action which constituted part of the breach or violation.” The Ninth Circuit found the “last action” would generally have been when funds were first offered under the plan unless a significant change in circumstance warranted a further review. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view, recognizing that under trust law (the foundation of ERISA’s fiduciary scheme), a fiduciary is “required to conduct a regular review of its investment with the nature and timing of the review contingent on the circumstances.” Accordingly, a fiduciary “has a continuing duty to monitor trust investments and remove imprudent ones,” a duty which is separate from the duty to prudently select investment options for inclusion in the plan. The result is not surprising – the fiduciary standards under ERISA are process-driven – and ERISA fiduciaries generally understand that prudently monitoring funds is as important as prudently selecting funds. Tibble merely confirms that this concept applies in the context of the statute of limitations. With this decision, the Supreme Court remands the case back to the Ninth Circuit to consider the merits of claims that a fiduciary breach resulted from offering retail-class mutual funds rather than institutional-class funds, which carry lower fees. The Supreme Court’s decision was limited to the statute of limitations issue and does not provide any guidance on the merits of fee litigation claims. A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision is available here.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.