The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with whether receiving pension investment disclosures constitutes “actual knowledge” of a fiduciary breach even when many people don’t read the detailed disclosures required by federal law.

The case, Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, is one of a trio of challenges this term—and perhaps the most significant—involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA. How the justices interpret the “actual knowledge” requirement in ERISA’s three-year limitation period could have major implications for the timing, costs and damages in suits for fiduciary breaches.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]