The words "revenue sharing"—foul language to some 401(k) participant advocates—did not make their way into the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Tibble v. Edison.

But that doesn't mean the payment schemes arranged between sponsors, investment managers, third-party plan administrators, and record keepers won't be affected by the decision.

That's because when the Supreme Court speaks, people listen, especially on rulings affecting the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, says Nancy Ross, an ERISA specialist and partner at Mayer Brown.

Complete your profile to continue reading and get FREE access to BenefitsPRO, part of your ALM digital membership.

  • 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 events
  • Access to other award-winning ALM websites including and

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Nick Thornton

Nick Thornton is a financial writer covering retirement and health care issues for BenefitsPRO and ALM Media. He greatly enjoys learning from the vast minds in the legal, academic, advisory and money management communities when covering the retirement space. He's also written on international marketing trends, financial institution risk management, defense and energy issues, the restaurant industry in New York City, surfing, cigars, rum, travel, and fishing. When not writing, he's pushing into some land or water.