The Supreme Court recently delivered a unanimous decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University
(U.S. No. 19-1401
) , finding that plan fiduciaries of participant-directed defined contribution retirement plans have a continuing duty to monitor all of the investment options available under the plans and remove any imprudent ones within a reasonable period of time.
, participants in two retirement plans alleged that the plan fiduciaries violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s (ERISA) duty of prudence required of all plan fiduciaries by:
- Failing to monitor and control recordkeeping fees, resulting in unreasonably high costs to plan participants
- Offering mutual funds and annuities in the form of “retail” share classes that carry higher fees than those charged by otherwise identical share classes of the same investments
- Offering over 400 investment options that were likely to confuse investors
The lower court in Hughes
—the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals—rejected the participants’ allegations based on one component of an ERISA fiduciary’s duty of prudence: the obligation to assemble a diverse menu of options. The Seventh Circuit determined that the plan fiduciaries had provided an adequate array of choices, including the types of funds the participants wanted—low-cost index funds.
The Supreme Court subsequently concluded that the Seventh Circuit erred in relying on the participants’ ultimate choice over their investments to excuse allegedly imprudent decisions by the plan fiduciaries. The court also concluded that the Seventh Circuit should have applied the guidance provided in another 2015 Supreme Court case: Tibble v. Edison
, 575 U.S. 523.
, the Supreme Court explained that, “even in a defined-contribution plan where participants choose their investments, plan fiduciaries are required to conduct their own independent evaluation to determine which investments may be prudently included in the plan’s menu of options.” Consequently, the court in Tibble
held that if the fiduciaries fail to remove an imprudent investment from the plan within a reasonable time, they breach their fiduciary duty.
Because the Seventh Circuit did not apply the guidance provided in Tibble
, the Supreme Court in Hughes
vacated the Seventh Circuit’s rejection of the participants’ allegations and remanded the case back to the court to reconsider the matter using the Tibble
Plan fiduciaries should take note of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hughes
and ensure appropriate review of pertinent participants’ investments.
Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 521 1526
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.