28.01.2025 01.57 CST
A federal court in Texas has ruled that American Airlines breached its duty of loyalty under ERISA by failing to respond to activities undertaken by a plan investment manager (BlackRock) supporting ESG initiatives. The court was unable to find a breach of prudence—rather it relied solely on the obligation of “loyalty.”
Spence v. American Airlines: Expanding the Playing Field for Fiduciary Liability?
A new ruling of fiduciary liability could cause fiduciaries to further examine firewalls between corporate policy and retirement plan management.
Federal court seeks to make ESG initiatives (even) riskier.
06.01.2025 12.00 CST
Some trends that might affect retirement plans under Trump 2.0.
The incoming administration has not articulated a benefits agenda. However, there are certain trends we can anticipate over the next few years.
20.06.2023 11.29 CDT
Plan sponsors can now take advantage of new opportunities to self-correct errors.
Since 1991 the IRS has had a program allowing plan sponsors to correct administrative errors and, over the years the IRS has expanded the availability of this program and the ability to “self-correct” errors without an IRS filing. SECURE 2.0 took this trend--of expanding the availability of self-correction--to the next level by directing the IRS to allow self-correction for a broad range of “inadvertent” errors. IRS Notice 2023-43 clarifies the rules for this expanded self-correction opportunity.
14.12.2022 09.06 CST
New DOL guidance seeks to clarify relationship between ESG factors and ERISA fiduciary requirements.
The U.S. Department of Labor has issued new final regulations that attempt (once again) to clarify how plan fiduciaries can consider the use of environmental, social and governance factors (“ESG”) in making plan investment decisions. The goal of these new final regulations was to walk back regulations, finalized during the waning days of the Trump administration in December 2020, that placed obstacles in the way of fiduciaries considering the use of ESG factors.
17.11.2022 11.59 CST
A round of court cases following Supreme Court’s Hughes decision places a greater burden on plaintiffs bringing fiduciary litigation.
Several recent decisions handed down by federal appellate courts offer some good news for plan fiduciaries. In each of these cases the courts affirmed dismissals of fiduciary litigation, concluding that the facts alleged were just not enough to support a claim. The dismissals were based on the courts’ assessment that even if the general facts alleged were true (e.g., that other plans paid less in recordkeeping or management fees or that other funds performed better) –those facts would not show that the actions taken by the fiduciaries for these specific plans were not prudent.