The new claim in the 403(b) plan lawsuit says the defendants should have protected participant data as plan assets and not allowed TIAA to use it to market its products and services to participants.
While the conference is quickly approaching, there is still time to sign up. All the information you need is here.
In a complicated complaint filed in federal district court, participants in Invesco’s retirement plan say they have been subject to disloyal and imprudent decisions made by conflicted plan officials.
A federal judge is allowing the plaintiff one last chance to make more context-specific arguments in her case.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association wants a federal district court to halt the program, based on ERISA preemption and the possibility that home-owning Californians could be called on to pay additional taxes to support Secure Choice, which aims at opening up retirement investing opportunities.
According to the College for Financial Planning, investors of all kinds are clamoring for more information about sustainable investments and corporate responsibility.
While non-electing church plans are not subject to most ERISA requirements, they are subject to pre-ERISA regulations.
Defendants strongly prevailed with their motion to dismiss, and the Illinois District Court barred further motions as moot: The complaint was far too general in its scope and allegations to move ahead.
According to EBSA Regional Director Michael Schloss, Cambridge Technology Group and its CEO made it nearly impossible for retirement plan participants to access their funds; both have been removed as plan fiduciaries.
A review of industry commentary dissecting the DOL’s recently published Field Assistance Bulletin on the topic of ESG investments suggests the “sub-regulatory guidance” has left a lot of stakeholders with key questions.
According to the settlement agreement, the university has already made changes to the investment lineup for its 403(b) plans.
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.