The uncertainty in the USC case raises the question as to why more sponsors of DC plans don't write arbitration agreements into plan documents. But claims against sponsors would not necessarily go away if arbitration agreements were enforceable. (Photo: Shutterstock)
Future class-action lawsuits against sponsors of defined contribution plans brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act could very well be stymied by the Supreme Court if the fiduciaries of the University of California's 403(b) plan get their way.
Last November, USC officially petitioned the High Court to review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In Munro v. USC, filed in August of 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, plan participants levied allegations common in claims against 403(b) plans being litigated across the country.
Continue Reading for Free
Register and gain access to:
- 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
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Nick Thornton
Nick Thornton is a financial writer covering retirement and health care issues for BenefitsPRO and ALM Media. He greatly enjoys learning from the vast minds in the legal, academic, advisory and money management communities when covering the retirement space. He's also written on international marketing trends, financial institution risk management, defense and energy issues, the restaurant industry in New York City, surfing, cigars, rum, travel, and fishing. When not writing, he's pushing into some land or water.
