In Hughes v Northwestern, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the Seventh Circuit erred by holding that a plaintiff can\u2019t state a plausible claim against plan fiduciaries based on the inclusion of a few imprudent investment options if the investment lineup offered to plan participants is diverse and contains prudent investment options.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a win for plaintiffs and ERISA litigators as the Supreme Court didn\u2019t curtail a participant\u2019s right to sue in Federal Court. However, the case did nothing in setting pleading standards, so it will still invite sloppy ERISA litigators who just show a plan is expensive without showing how that\u2019s an actual breach of fiduciary duty.<\/p>\n
So expect more fee litigation cases and more fee litigation dismissals.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Hughes v Northwestern, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the Seventh Circuit erred by holding that a plaintiff can\u2019t state a plausible claim against plan fiduciaries based on the inclusion of a few imprudent investment options if the investment … Continue reading