Defined Contribution

Supreme Court Defines ‘Actual Knowledge’ in DC Plan Suit

Supreme Court Rules That 'Actual Knowledge' Means What It Says
1 min 31 sec

The Supreme Court in late February ruled that the statute of limitations for lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA will only be reduced to three years “when a plaintiff actually is aware” of the facts of a breach, “not when he should be.”

Background: ERISA lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duty are typically restricted by a six-year statute of limitations. However, that timeframe can be cut in half if the participant had “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach (29 U.S.C. §1113(2)).

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma hinges on the use of the word “actual.” Although Intel was able to demonstrate that the plaintiff had visited a website that hosted various disclosures multiple times and received emails directing him to disclosures documenting fees and returns, the plaintiff testified that he did not remember reviewing the relevant disclosures.

Just because a reasonably diligent person should be aware of something doesn’t mean the person is, the court ruled. The decision states that the court assumes Congress acted deliberately in drafting this particular provision in ERISA to include this higher standard. The decision also assumes that plaintiffs who “recall reading particular disclosures will…be bound by oath to say so in their depositions,” and that actual knowledge can be inferred from the participant’s actions.

This decision is limited to defining the standard of actual knowledge. The case now goes back to the district court to determine whether the plaintiff’s claims in this case are credible or sufficient to meet the actual knowledge standard.

Bottom Line: Plan sponsors may wish to undergo a communications audit or redistribute important communication materials to participants to ensure they are informed about plan information. In addition, plan sponsors can work with their recordkeepers to document affirmative confirmations that participants have reviewed relevant plan information.

Posted by

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Related Posts

IRS Announces Updated Retirement Plan Limits for 2024

Jamie McAllister
Jamie McAllister details the 2024 DC plan limits.

Callan Survey: Legislation, Regulation, and Litigation Driving Change in DC Plans

Jana Steele
The 16th annual DC Survey now covers SECURE 2.0 (pre-passage) and diversity topics, along with the key tenets of DC plan management, governance, and f...

IRS Announces Updated DC Plan Limits for 2023

Jamie McAllister
Jamie McAllister provides the details on the new IRS retirement plan limits for 2023.

What DC Plan Sponsors Should Know About Recent Litigation Trends: Part 2

Jana Steele
Jana Steele reviews key themes to emerge from our analysis of DC plan litigation from 2019-2022.

What DC Plan Sponsors Should Know About Recent Litigation Trends: Part 1

Jana Steele
In the first of two blog posts, Jana Steele provides an overview of DC plan litigation from 2019-2022.

Financial Wellness: Is It the Right Prescription for Your DC Plan?

Jana Steele
Jana Steele provides a summary of her recent white paper on financial wellness options for DC plans.

Target Date Funds and the Ever-Evolving Glidepath

Dario Buechi
Dario Buechi analyzes how target date fund glidepaths have changed over the last decade in response to low expected returns and high inflation.

DOL Weighs in on Cryptocurrencies in DC Plans

Benjamin Taylor
Ben Taylor explains the compliance assistance bulletin from the Department of Labor on cryptocurrencies.

DC Plans Continue Laser-Focus on Fees, Exclusive Callan Survey Finds

Jamie McAllister
Jamie McAllister provides a high-level summary of the 2022 DC Trends Survey.

The Supreme Court Weighs in on Northwestern DC Case

Jana Steele
Jana Steele explains the implications of the Supreme Court's Northwestern ruling for DC plan sponsors.

Callan Family Office

You are now leaving Callan LLC’s website and going to Callan Family Office’s website. Callan Family Office is not affiliated with Callan LLC.  Callan LLC has licensed the Callan® trademark to Callan Family Office for use in providing investment advisory services to ultra-high net worth clients, family foundations, and endowments. Callan Family Office and Callan LLC are independent, unaffiliated investment advisory firms separately registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Callan LLC is not responsible for the services and content on Callan Family Office’s website. Inclusion of this link does not constitute or imply an endorsement, sponsorship, or recommendation by Callan LLC of their website, or its contents, and Callan LLC is not responsible or liable for your use of it. When visiting their website, you are subject to Callan Family Office’s terms of use and privacy policies.