On January 24, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Seventh Circuit’s suggestion that plan fiduciaries need not monitor all designated investment alternatives, and confirmed what plan sponsors and fiduciaries have long understood to be the law — the duty of prudence applies to all investment selection and monitoring. But the decision also provided some guidance for lower courts considering the flood of excessive-fee complaints filed in recent years. To learn more about this decision, read our coverage.
- What did the Supreme Court hold, and what issues did it not reach?
- What might happen on remand in the Northwestern case?
- What does this mean for current and future ERISA litigation against plan sponsors?
- How does this ruling impact current plan-management practices?