Season 6 Episode 9 (click here)
The meaning of meaningful, forfeitures, 3(16) fiduciary responsibilities—oh my!
In mid-October Nevin (Adams) & Fred (Reish) took the Nevin & Fred podcast LIVE to ASPPA Annual in San Antonio for a conversation about retirement plan litigation—and what it means for the people who actually administer those plans.
We covered the recent Supreme Court oral arguments in Anderson v. Intel – what that case was about, what the justices asked about, and what it’s (likely) to mean for the future of ERISA litigation.
And then forfeiture reallocations – a subject that, based on the sheer volume of lawsuits, seems due for an appearance at the nation’s high court as well.
And boy – did we get questions.
• What does the plan document actually require?
• And where do TPAs fit when the finger-pointing starts?
Plenty to unpack—and plenty for plan professionals to think about.
Come check it all out!
Episode Resources
Intel oral arguments and briefs
NAPA: Justices Probe ‘Meaningful Benchmark’ Standard in Intel Arguments
Official oral-argument transcript — PDF
United States/DOL amicus supporting Intel — PDF
Borzi, Handorf, and Khawar amicus supporting participants — PDF
Forfeiture litigation
DOL amicus in Hutchins v. HP — PDF
NAPA: DOL Files Fourth Amicus Backing 401(k) Fiduciaries in Forfeiture Suits
NAPA: DOL Backs Fiduciaries in a Fifth Forfeiture Amicus
DOL amicus in Stana v. SAS Institute — PDF
NAPA: Terms of Intuit Forfeiture Suit Settlement Unveiled
NAPA: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Fiduciary Forfeiture Suit — Qualcomm
NAPA: Schlichter Bogard Targets Ford 401(k) Plans with Broad Fiduciary Breach Claims