While the Supreme Court ruled in the monumental 401(k) case Tibble v. Edison that mostly dealt with statute of limitations issues, one could read something into it a little more.<\/p>\n
Tibble was the case where the District Court held that a plan sponsor violated its duty of prudence as a plan fiduciary by not monitoring the plan\u2019s investments. While the Court held that a plan\u2019s selection of investments and failing to monitor is a continuing breach, what they said as part of their ruling should make any plan provider or plan sponsor to take pause:<\/p>\n
\u201cIn short, under trust law, a fiduciary normally has a continuing duty of some kind to monitor investments and remove imprudent ones. A plaintiff may allege that a fiduciary breached the duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones. In such a case, so long as the alleged breach of the continuing duty occurred within six years of suit, the claim is timely.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While the Supreme Court ruled in the monumental 401(k) case Tibble v. Edison that mostly dealt with statute of limitations issues, one could read something into it a little more. Tibble was the case where the District Court held that … Continue reading