LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, the History Behind It, and How One Case Can Clarify and Create Confusion at the Same Time
Author: Joseph C. Faucher.; Michael A. Vanic.
Source: Volume 25, Number 04, Summer 2008 , pp.18-30(13)
< previous article |next article > |return to table of contents
Abstract:
On February 20, 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates . Later in this article, we will discuss the facts of LaRue and describe its holding in more detail. For now, suffice it to say that the opinion makes clear that the door is inarguably open to individual participants—or subsets of participants—of defined contribution retirement plans to sue plan fiduciaries when a breach of duty by the fiduciary results in a diminution of that participant or subset’s individual plan account balance. A full understanding of LaRue, however, requires a brief history lesson. Without the context that lesson provides, it is difficult to understand how the opinion makes sense, clarifies and yet simultaneously manages to inject some new confusion into the law.Keywords:
Affiliations:
1: Reish Luftman Reicher & Cohen; 2: Reish Luftman Reicher & Cohen.