-
Join 236 other subscribers
Meta
-
Recent Posts
- “At the Pleading Stage”: An Analysis of the Seventh Circuit’s Reconsideration of Hughes v. Northwestern University
- “Humble Arithmetic” and the Future of 401(k) Litigation
- 401(k) InvestSense: Focus on Fiduciary Process Over Product
- Brotherston Revisited: Will the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals “Fix” the Ongoing 401(k) SNAFU?
- 4Q 2022 AMVR “Cheat Sheets”: Correlation of Returns, “Closet Indexing,” and Fiduciary Liability
The Prudent Investment Adviser Rules
-
Join 236 other subscribers
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
What If They Are Wrong?: How Court Decisions Impact 401(k) and 403(b) Plan Sponsors’ Fiduciary Risk Management Decisions
As an attorney and a fiduciary risk management consultant, my first thought when SCOTUS announced its decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University1 (Northwestern) was the renewed potential fiduciary risk liability for the plan sponsors. During the oral arguments, SCOTUS was … Continue reading
Posted in 401k, 401k compliance, 401k investments, 401k plan design, 401k risk management, 403b, Active Management Value Ratio, AMVR, compliance, cost consciousness, cost efficient, cost-efficiency, ERISA, ERISA litigation, fiduciary compliance, fiduciary duty, fiduciary law, fiduciary liability, fiduciary liability, Fiduciary prudence, fiduciary prudence, fiduciary responsibility, fiduciary risk management, fiduciary standard, Mutual funds, pension plans, plan advisers, plan sponsors, prudence, retirement plans, risk management, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, wealth management, wealth preservation
Tagged 401k, 401k compliance, 401k litigation, compliance, ERISA, ERISA litigation, fiduciary, fiduciary investing, fiduciary law, fiduciary liability, investment advisers, retirement plans, SCOTUS, Supreme Court
Leave a comment
Who Will Tell the Plan Sponsors?: The Truth About the Looming Fiduciary Liability Trap in 401(k) and 403(b) Litigation
I have been reading a number of articles from some very impressive law firms suggesting that the attorneys for 401(k)/403(b) firms should file combine motions to dismiss with motions for summary judgment in order to deny plan participants from obtaining … Continue reading
Posted in 401k, 401k compliance, 401k investments, 401k plan design, 401k risk management, 403b, Active Management Value Ratio, AMVR, compliance, consumer protection, cost consciousness, cost efficient, cost-efficiency, Cost_Efficiency, ERISA, ERISA litigation, fiduciary compliance, fiduciary duty, fiduciary law, fiduciary liability, fiduciary liability, Fiduciary prudence, fiduciary prudence, fiduciary responsibility, fiduciary risk management, fiduciary standard, investment advisers, pension plans, plan advisers, plan sponsors, prudence, retirement plans, risk management, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, wealth management, wealth preservation
Tagged 401k, 401k compliance, 401k fiduciary, 401k litigation, 401k plan advisers, 401k plans, 403b, 404c compliance, compliance, ERISA, ERISA litigation, fiduciary, fiduciary investing, fiduciary law, fiduciary liability, Fiduciary prudence, fiduciary risk management, fiduciary standard, fiduciaryliability, fiduciaryresponsibility, investment advisers, plan sponsor, plan sponsors, retirement plans, SCOTUS, Supreme Court
Leave a comment
The Prudent Investment Fiduciary Rules 