On January 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the District Court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner’s case in Hughes v. Northwestern University. The Court rejected the notion that participants’ having the authority to choose their investments excuses allegedly imprudent fiduciary decisions.
The petitioners in this case were Northwestern University employees that participated in two defined contribution plans offered by the university. They alleged that the plan fiduciaries (1) failed to monitor and control recordkeeping fees, resulting in high plan costs to participants; (2) offered several mutual funds and annuities in retail share classes instead of otherwise identical institutional shares that generally come with lower fees; and (3) offered too many investment options, causing confusion among participants that led to poor investment decisions.
The District Court and Seventh Circuit focused on the fiduciaries’ duty to provide participants with a diverse menu of investment options. They specifically determined that the respondents had provided several low-cost index fund options, which meant that plan participants were not forced to pick the higher-cost investments.
However, the Court stated that the District Court and Seventh Circuit erred in indicating that the participants’ choice over their investments excused the respondents’ alleged violation of the duty of prudence. Instead, the Court reasoned that the courts should’ve considered the precedence set by Tibble vs. Edison Int’l. In Tibble, the Court explained that plan fiduciaries have an ongoing requirement to monitor investments and to remove any imprudent investment from the plan, even when the participants can choose between investment options.
As such, the Court vacated the lower courts’ decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit for it to reevaluate the allegations considering the precedence set by Tibble.
Retirement plan sponsors should take this holding as confirmation that the requirement to monitor and even reconsider plan investments remains. They should work with plan advisors to ensure that they are meeting their fiduciary obligations regarding investment options.
Hughes v. Northwestern University »
PPI Benefit Solutions does not provide legal or tax advice. Compliance, regulatory and related content is for general informational purposes and is not guaranteed to be accurate or complete. You should consult an attorney or tax professional regarding the application or potential implications of laws, regulations or policies to your specific circumstances.
Sign up to have it delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign up