Tibble v Edison broke new ground in terms of clarifying that plan stewards have “an ongoing duty to monitor plan investments.” In the Tibble case, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that an initial fund review was sufficient when facts and circumstances may have changed to preclude the need for an ongoing assessment of a retirement plan’s fund lineup. However, the defendants in Tibble actually did a lot of things right that many retirement plans fail to do. Here are the top five:
Sign up to download Tibble v Edison - Five Lessons Learned
