Find Your Resource

In Lampkin v. UBS Fin. Servs. Inc., No. 19-249 (U.S., petition denied Oct.

In Jander v. Retirement Plans Committee of IBM (2nd Cir. Dec.

On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer that there is no presumption of prudence to protect fiduciaries of plans designed to invest in company stock, and specifically employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs).

Since a seminal case in 1985 (Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134), courts have largely, if not unanimously, concluded that individuals could not sue ERISA plan fiduciaries for individual losses to the plan.

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fifth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer (No. 12-751), meaning that the court will review a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether ESOP fiduciaries are entitled to a presumption of prudence.

The Supreme Court announced on June 3, 2019, that it would hear an appeal by IBM, which is fighting a claim by participants in its 401(k) plan.

The Supreme Court's June 25 ruling in Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer ended the presumption of prudence for fiduciaries of ESOPs, but its decisions to remand three related cases shows that its decision will have both pros and cons for ESOPs.

The report, Ours to Share: How Worker-Ownership Can Change the American Economy, explores and evaluates various forms of employee ownership with a focus on worker cooperativ

Our recent ESOP Topics Survey gathered data from 160 ESOP companies on how they’re handling the COVID-19 crisis and other issues, including questions about their turnover rates in 2019. The surveyed ESOP companies reported dramatically lower turnover than overall national averages.

Forfeiture rates and their application are one of the least understood aspects of ASC 718 and create numerous challenges in accounting for equity compensation.