Supreme Court Leaves 'Duty To Monitor' Definition To Others
Law360, New York ( May 18, 2015, 6:27 PM EDT) -- On May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States confirmed the existence of an independent duty on the part of ERISA plan fiduciaries to continuously "monitor" retirement plan investments and remove those that are imprudent. In Tibble v. Edison International, the court held that ERISA's six-year statute of limitations for breaches of fiduciary duty does not extinguish claims alleging imprudent selection of investments if a continuing "duty to monitor" those investments is violated within the limitations period. The court thus breathed life into stale claims about investment selection by recognizing a fiduciary's continuing obligation to "monitor" investments and investment options. But the opinion stopped short of defining the precise contours of the "duty to monitor," leaving the development of the obligation to case-by-case evolution....
Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.