GLENN TIBBLE, et al., Petitioners v. EDISON INTERNATIONAL et al., 575 U.S. 523

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-A plaintiff could have alleged that a fiduciary breached the duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones, and, in such a case, so long as the alleged breach of the continuing duty to monitor investments and remove imprudent ones occurred within six years of suit, the claim was timely, under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1113; [2]-The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred by applying a 6-year statutory bar based solely on the initial selection of the three mutual funds without considering the contours of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty; [3]-On remand, the Ninth Circuit had to consider the beneficiaries’ claims that the plan fiduciaries breached their duties within the relevant 6-year period under § 1113, recognizing the importance of analogous trust law.