Feb. 24 --The U.S. Supreme Court won't review an appellate court decision holding that a profit-sharing plan's recordkeeper didn't act as a plan fiduciary in selecting mutual funds for the plan's investment lineup for purposes of a challenge to the recordkeeper's receipt of revenue-sharing fees (Leimkuehler v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., U.S., No. 13-536,cert. denied 2/24/14).
In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the revenue-sharing practices of American United Life Insurance Co. (AUL) against a challenge by the trustee of a profit-sharing plan that hired AUL to provide recordkeeping and administrative services (74 PBD, 4/17/13; 40 BPR 1002, 4/23/13; 56 EBC 2407).
The trustee alleged that AUL breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by receiving and failing to disclose that it received revenue-sharing payments from mutual fund providers. Under the theory advanced by the trustee and the Department of Labor, AUL was a functional fiduciary under ERISA Section 3(21)(A)(i),because it had unilateral authority to select the mutual funds in which plan assets could be invested (131 PBD, 7/10/12; 39 BPR 1376, 7/17/12).
The Seventh Circuit rejected the idea that AUL's selection of mutual funds rendered it an ERISA fiduciary for purposes of the trustee's claims.
According to the Seventh Circuit, AUL's control over plan assets imposed fiduciary status on AUL only if the trustee's claims for breach of fiduciary duty arose from AUL's handling of those assets.
Because the trustee's fiduciary breach claim focused on the revenue-sharing arrangement--and not on any alleged mismanagement of plan assets--AUL wasn't a fiduciary for purposes of those claims, the Seventh Circuit determined.
In its petition for Supreme Court review, the trustee asked the high court whether the Seventh Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with the decisions of six other circuits, that a person who exercises some authority or control over the assets of a plan is a fiduciary with respect to that plan only if he is alleged to have “mismanaged” the plan's assets.
The high court's announcement came Feb. 24.
Text of the Seventh Circuit's opinion is at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Leimkuehler_v_American_United_Life_Ins_Co_713_F3d_905_56_EBC_2407/1.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).