¶1Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to the following question: "Whether a claim that ERISA plan fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by offering higher-cost retail-class mutual funds to plan participants, even though identical lower-cost institution-class mutual funds were available, is barred by 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1)when fiduciaries initially chose the higher-cost mutual funds as plan investments more than six years before the claim was filed."
135 S. Ct. 43
Tibble v. Edison Int'l
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided October 2, 2014
Supreme Court of the United States · decided 2014-10-02
Cited by 13 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2017
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (§ 413 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2014-10-02
View the full empirical analysis of this case →