Summary of the Supreme Court’s Holding in Tibble v. Edison
Last Updated: May 26, 2015
- The Plaintiffs claimed that of the 40 funds offered, six funds were retail share classes, despite there being an institutional share class available with lower investment expenses.
- The Defendants claimed that the 6-year statute of limitations has expired because the funds were added to the plan more than six years ago. Therefore, there is not a continual fiduciary duty to monitor the investments.
- Plaintiffs claimed there is an ongoing duty to monitor the plan’s investments and the statute of limitations does not apply.