In two recent court decisions (Hutchins v. HP Inc and Perez-Cruet v. Qualcomm Inc) plaintiffs claimed that employers’ decision to use forfeitures to reduce employer contributions (and not to pay for plan administrative expenses) was a breach of ERISA fiduciary responsibility. The courts reached opposite conclusions in these cases—with one court (Hutchins) dismissing the complaint and the other (Perez-Cruet) denying the motion to dismiss and allowing the case to proceed.

A new fiduciary case alleges that TIAA and Morningstar colluded to alter asset allocation tools to promote certain TIAA annuities. The case is directed at TIAA and Morningstar, rather than at plan sponsors—and could create liability for TIAA and Morningstar for both ERISA and non-ERISA plans. The complaint rehashes some old criticism of TIAA—but also contains some significant new accusations. If this case succeeds, it could have some far-reaching implications.

The United States Department of Labor has finalized new rules defining who is an investment fiduciary under ERISA. These new final rules mark the latest effort (started in 2010) to update a fiduciary definition that was initially adopted in 1975. The DOL also issued a new exemption allowing these fiduciaries to engage in certain transactions (such as accepting commissions) that would otherwise be prohibited.

The DOL has proposed regulations updating the definition of investment fiduciary. The proposed regulation seeks to create a uniform standard applicable to all investment advice provided to ERISA plans and to IRAs

The jury found that Yale breached fiduciary duties and cause plan to pay excessive fees; at the same time the jury found that a fiduciary following a prudent process could have made the same decisions and awarded $0 in damages.