Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Intel Corporation in, Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, a case with potentially far reaching implications to employers who maintain Section 401(k) retirement plans.

The case involved a class action lawsuit brought by an Intel employee who claimed that Intel, Intel committees and individuals administering two Intel retirement plans had breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, the federal law that governs such plans, by offering two investment funds that were imprudently overinvested in “alternative investments” such as hedge funds and private equity and failed to disclose relevant facts about those allocations to plan participants.  This is but one of many similar class action ERISA lawsuits brought against large employers, universities and colleges.  The Supreme Court decision focused on the time a plaintiff has to bring such a claim.  ERISA Section 413 allows a plaintiff as long as six years to file suit following an alleged ERISA breach or violation.  However, if a plaintiff has “actual knowledge” of a breach or violation, that period is reduced to three years.


Continue Reading

Last month, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Tibble v. Edison International that retirement plan fiduciaries have an ongoing duty to monitor plan investments.  The ruling came in a case involving challenges to plan investment decisions made more than six years before suit was filed. The lower courts had ruled some claims were

A number of federal agencies recently issued guidance in response to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Windsor, which held that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.  On September 18, 2013, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) issued Technical Release 2013-04, and adopted the same rule previously outlined