Article on ERISA Fiduciary Provision Application

Peter M. Langdon recently published a Note entitled, For Whom the Plan Tolls: Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Committee and the Emergence of Exacting Scrutiny Awaiting Fiduciaries in Breach in the ERISA Litigation Landscape Post Dudenhoeffer, 49 Creighton L. Rev. 437 (2016). Provided below is a summary of the Note:

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended (“ERISA”), was enacted in 1974. The primary purpose and special nature of ERISA is to secure the protection of private individual pension rights and retirement viability of participants. In the second quarter of fiscal year 2015, between April 1 and June 30, private and public pension net assets totaled $390.4 billion. Recently, ERISA litigation has burgeoned and the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged the importance of ERISA. The Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer began to shed light on the shifting burden of proof in ERISA litigation. However, the Supreme Court has refrained from entering into the litigation landscape post-Dudenhoeffer, rendering the landscape unclear as to who bears the burden of proof in ERISA fiduciary breach litigation proceedings.

This Note will first review Tatum‘s facts and holding. This Note will then discuss the legislative and judicial history of the ERISA fiduciary provisions. This Note will argue the Fourth Circuit correctly interpreted and appropriately applied the burden-shifting framework under existing ERISA breach of fiduciary duty case law. This Note will show Congress intended to apply specific trust law principles to ERISA fiduciaries, and this intent has been solidified by the United States Supreme Court. This Note will also demonstrate that the Eighth and Second Circuits correctly interpreted the law regarding ERISA fiduciary breach, which originated from Congress and was solidified by the Court. Finally, this Note will conclude that Tatum correctly interpreted ERISA fiduciary breach law from Congress, the Court, and sister circuits, and appropriately applied the burden-shifting framework as to loss causation under ERISA breach of fiduciary duty cases.