Independent advisory shop founder Joe Gordon talks about winning new plan business from brokers and bank advisers who are “seriously fumbling the discussion with clients about fees and fiduciary change.”
A federal appeals court found a district court did not apply the correct standard of review in a case challenging the calculation of lump-sum payments from a defined benefit (DB) plan.
Legal experts generally consider reconsideration of a judgment an extraordinary remedy, one which will be granted only sparingly; even so, a federal district court has admitted key mistakes and says it will reconsider its ruling in a retirement plan lawsuit in which it had previously denied summary judgement in favor of the defendants.
Expert attorneys warn the new non-enforcement policy binds only the DOL and IRS; state regulators and private plaintiffs could potentially seek to bring an action for alleged non-compliance with impartial conduct standards.
Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting and Lowe’s are being sued by the participants of the Lowe’s 401(k) retirement plan; the proposed class of plaintiffs puts forward a variety of familiar ERISA fiduciary breach claims.
Backing away from the topic of the DOL fiduciary rule, ERISA attorney Fred Reish focused his speech at the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s national conference on general compliance duties of ERISA plan sponsors; he noted that courts have applied what is called the “two hats” doctrine.
On appeal, the candy company contended that the district court misapplied the federal statute governing multiemployer pension funds in critical status and, second, that the court erred in holding that it had failed to plead adequately its affirmative defenses.
A pair of former executives of First Farmers Financial are being punished for their involvement in the sale of $179 million in fraudulent loans to a Milwaukee company that provided investment services to 42 retirement plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Anticipating the DOL will not itself ask the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a crucial mid-March panel ruling that vacated the Obama-era fiduciary rule expansion, attorneys general and retiree advocacy organizations are speaking out, asking the full appellate court to reassess its decision.
A federal appellate court affirmed a lower court decision that a change to Northern Trust's DB plan benefit formula does not violate ERISA or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Plaintiffs include in their complaint a substantial amount of backward-looking fund performance data to underpin their failure to monitor claims, comparing the Home Depot offerings to others that could have been purchased.
Former committee members—who were not members at the time the complaint was filed—filed motions to remove themselves as defendants in the case; some of the motions were granted, but a couple were denied.
Nearly a month after an appellate court unexpectedly quashed the DOL fiduciary rule expansion, the Securities and Exchange Commission has announced a date and time for its first formal meeting on the topic.
The ruling to consolidate the cases and allow them to proceed comes just about a week after the parties appeared for a hearing before the court, considering twin motions for dismissal and summary judgement.
Amid a glut of retirement plan industry litigation and regulatory change, advisers are asking the twin questions of whether one owes a fiduciary duty to their client, and if so, what exactly those fiduciary duties entail.
Following extensively detailed deliberation citing important SCOTUS rulings and other precedents, the district court ruling rejects a multiemployer plan’s usage of the so-called “Segal Blend” to set the discount rate for assessing a member's withdrawal liability.
The “Getting It Right – Know Your Fiduciary Responsibilities” seminar will be held in Providence, Rhode Island, on June 28.
In its motion, NYU asks that a federal district court judge issue an order “precluding from trial … any testimony, evidence, or arguments concerning claims that were previously dismissed by the court in its August 25, 2017, opinion.”
U.S. District Judge John A. Ross noted in his order that the arguments the defendants advance in support of dismissal are virtually identical to those raised in their original motion which was rejected by the court and, absent a new argument, he is led to the same conclusion not to dismiss the suit.