The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Tibble v. Edison International this week. A link to the transcript published by the Court can be found here. For those who are interested, I highly recommend you read through it.
The mainstream media, in articles such as this one, interpreted the court's discussion as hinting at a victory for the plaintiffs. But let's be clear: that's not necessarily a clear-cut outcome. A reversal requires difficult decisions by the justices about what is required of fiduciaries.
I generally got the sense that not one of the justices (other than Justice Thomas, who hasn't asked questions in years) supported the 9th Circuit test that held where an investment is selected more than six years before a lawsuit is brought, there is no ongoing duty to monitor unless changed circumstances amounting to the investment almost being like a new investment would cause a fiduciary to re-evaluate the fund.
Recommended For You
Complete your profile to continue reading and get FREE access to BenefitsPRO, part of your ALM digital membership.
Your access to unlimited BenefitsPRO content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking benefits news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
