The 401k fiduciary rule is gone again. The risk is not. In this regulatory limbo, plan sponsors face more exposure, not less.
Posts From Christopher Carosa, CTFA
Viewing this content requires a Basic (Free) Membership or better. You are not currently logged in. If you have an account, you may login below, or use the “Log In”
ERISA meaningful benchmark debate heads to Supreme Court just as private equity pushes deeper into 401k plans. Are committees ready?
Private equity investments raise a second layer of fiduciary difficulty because they are not simply harder to compare. They are also harder to value, harder to redeem, and harder to explain to participants who may assume daily-priced plan options operate under familiar public-market rules.
Even with DOL support, 401k forfeiture practices are facing a new wave of aggressive litigation. Is your plan exposed?
Ongoing forfeiture lawsuits involving major plans are reshaping how courts evaluate fiduciary oversight. Sponsors who rely on routine processes may discover that governance gaps create legal exposure for committees and financial harm for participants.
Recent court rulings suggest ‘methodical management’ may trigger liability. Is your 401k fiduciary compliance a solid defense or illusion?
Cunningham v. Cornell is testing whether traditional 401k fiduciary compliance truly protects plan sponsors. Courts and regulators are probing governance gaps, personal liability, and participant harm more aggressively than ever.
ERISA litigation enters a new aggressive phase in 2026. Are you falling into the top governance pitfalls plan sponsors must avoid?
Fiduciary litigation did not let up in 2025, and 2026 is seeing even more refined theories targeting 401k plans. Plan sponsors must look beyond procedural checklists to avoid the top governance pitfalls that trigger personal liability and erode participant savings.
