(Photo: Shutterstock)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its Hughes v. Northwestern University ruling, underscored the need for plan sponsors to err on the side of more rather than less when considering the scope of their fiduciary responsibilities. While the case focused on high-cost investment options, it's conceivable that the ruling could eventually expose plan sponsors to fiduciary risk for decisions that produce unnecessarily high levels of cash-out leakage for terminated participants, a potential risk that could be avoided if plan sponsors were to proactively adopt asset portability solutions, such as auto portability.
Complete your profile to continue reading and get FREE access to BenefitsPRO, part of your ALM digital membership.
Your access to unlimited BenefitsPRO content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Critical BenefitsPRO information including cutting edge post-reform success strategies, access to educational webcasts and videos, resources from industry leaders, and informative Newsletters.
- Exclusive discounts on ALM, BenefitsPRO magazine and BenefitsPRO.com events
- Access to other award-winning ALM websites including ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com
Already have an account? Sign In
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
