Lawsuits by 401(k) plan participants related to employer stock in a 401(k) plan are nothing new. These lawsuits typically allege that ERISA plan fiduciaries failed to protect employees' retirement savings when the employer stock price falls. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dudenhoeffer decision, which included the elimination of the presumption of prudence, these suits are often dismissed. However, during oral arguments for the case of IBM et al. v. Jander et al., the Supreme Court is now faced with reconciling the tension between federal securities law and ERISA fiduciary duty standards. The IBM case asks whether IBM insiders, who were also plan fiduciaries, were required to promptly disclose IBM's struggles that led to a drop in IBM's stock price. IBM argued that the justices should "address fiduciaries' obligations under securities law when deciding what standards courts should use to evaluate ERISA stock cases." IBM workers, on the other hand, contended that IBM should have made an earlier disclosure of its failing microelectronics business based on ERISA fiduciary duty standards. Some commentators expect conservative justices to side with IBM given the tension that arises when requiring ERISA plan fiduciaries to disclose inside information, while others suggest, in line with Justice Breyer's comments, that the question the Court agreed to decide was under ERISA, not securities law. At this stage, it is unclear what direction the case will go -- we will keep you updated on the Court's decision.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2025 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Antoinette Schindel practices in KMK Law's Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group. Antoinette regularly advises employers regarding Affordable Care Act (ACA) compliance issues, including health coverage and ...
- Partner
Lisa Wintersheimer Michel is the leader of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group. Her practice primarily involves all aspects of qualified retirement plans, including profit sharing plans, 401(k) plans ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor
- Department of Justice
- Employment Law
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Discrimination
- Workplace Violence
- EEOC
- NLRB
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Religion Discrimination
- Title VII
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Coronavirus
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Diversity
- NLRA
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Artificial Intelligence
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Privacy
- FLSA
- Overtime Pay
- Federal Trade Commission
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employment Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ADAAA
- Whistleblower
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Environmental Law
- SECURE Act
- Privacy Laws
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- ICE Raids and Audits – What’s an Employer to Do
- New Online Registration Requirements for Foreign Nationals
- Workplace Violence: Are You Taking Required Steps to Protect Your Employees?
- EEOC & DOJ New Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination: What Does it Mean for Employers?
- EEOC Targets 20 Large Law Firms regarding DEI related Employment Practices
- Ohio Senate Bill 11: Key Provisions and Implications for Employers
- Shifting Burdens: Is McDonnell Douglas Past Its Prime?
- Uncertain Ground: The NLRB, EEOC, and the Fallout of Presidential Firings
- UPDATED: What’s Next for the Department of Labor? The Confirmation of Lori Chávez-DeRemer
- Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Where Things Stand in Response to Actions Taken by President Trump