Statute of Limitations Supreme Court of the United States

Statute of Limitations refers to a statute that sets the time period during which a legal claim can be brought. Most statute of limitations laws require individuals to sue at some point during a set period... more +
Statute of Limitations refers to a statute that sets the time period during which a legal claim can be brought. Most statute of limitations laws require individuals to sue at some point during a set period usually commencing from the date of the wrong or injury or the discovery of the wrong or injury. Except for under a limited set of circumstances, if an individual does not file a suit within the specified time period, the law bars them from ever suing on that claim. less -
News & Analysis as of

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Indefinite Tolling of False Claims Act under Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act; Holds First-to-File...

Yesterday, in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel. Carter, 575 U.S. __ (2015), the Supreme Court settled two important questions under the False Claims Act (the FCA). In a unanimous decision...more

Supreme Court: ERISA Fiduciaries Have Ongoing Duty to Monitor Investments - Selection of Plan Investment Alternative Is Not a...

In Tibble v. Edison International, 13-550 (U.S. May 18, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires ERISA plan fiduciaries to monitor plan investments for...more

Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Paves Way for 401(k) Plan Lawsuits

On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision that may pave the way for more lawsuits against ERISA plans alleging a breach of fiduciary duty regarding plan fees and choice of investment alternatives....more

Supreme Trouble with Tibble

While the Supreme Court ruled in the monumental 401(k) case Tibble v. Edison that mostly dealt with statute of limitations issues, one could read something into it a little more. Tibble was the case where the District...more

Supreme Court Rules on Plan Fiduciaries Duty to Monitor Plan Investments

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday, May 18, 2015, that a plan trustee has a continuing duty to adequately monitor plan investments and remove imprudent ones. Tibble v. Edison, Int’l, 2015 BL...more

Supreme Court Ruling Heightens Pressure on Fiduciaries to Monitor 401(k) Plan Investments

On May 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Tibble et al. v. Edison International et al., No. 13-550 (S. Ct. May 18, 2015) that ordinary principles of trust law impose on ERISA fiduciaries a duty to continually...more

Some Limited Trouble with Tibble? Part II –Supreme Court Decides Excessive-Fee Case Involving 401(k) Plan

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided the case of Tibble v. Edison International. In Tibble, the Court held that the statute of limitations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974...more

401(k) Fee Litigation to Increase Following Tibble Decision

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tibble v. Edison Int'l, it will now be easier for participants in 401(k) and other participant-directed plans to bring lawsuits challenging investment options added to the...more

Locke Lord QuickStudy: The Supreme Court Opines In Tibble v. Edison That The Duty to Monitor Investments Is Ongoing

In a highly anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court recently held that a 401(k) fiduciary breach lawsuit may proceed even when the claim is based on an imprudent selection of investment funds that occurred more...more

Unanimous Supreme Court Vacates Tibble v. Edison International: Much Ado About Nothing? Or Something More?

On May 18, 2015, the United State Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Tibble, et al. v. Edison International, et al., 729 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2013). Tibble is an “excessive fee”...more

"Supreme Court Recognizes ERISA Fiduciary Duty to Monitor Plan Investments"

On May 18, 2015, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Tibble v. Edison International1 that fiduciaries who select investment options for 401(k) plans have a continuing duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act...more

Continuing Duty To Monitor? Yes. Scope of That Duty? Wait And See…

In a case we have blogged about before, the Supreme Court in Tibble v. Edison International unanimously has concluded that an ERISA fiduciary has a continuing duty to monitor investments made in an ERISA governed savings...more

Supreme Court Instructs Ninth Circuit to Consider Common Law of Trusts in Applying ERISA's Statute of Limitations

The Supreme Court has once again emphasized the importance of ERISA’s origins in the common law of trusts, this time in interpreting its statute of limitations. On May 18, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in...more

Duty to Monitor Investments Extends Statute of Limitations for Fiduciary Breach Claim Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has decided an important statute of limitations issue in an ongoing fiduciary breach case, Tibble v. Edison International. Tibble has attracted attention up to this point for its substantive claim: that...more

Supreme Court Acknowledges Fiduciaries Have Continuous Duty to Monitor Plan Investments, Remove Imprudent Investments

On May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) case, finding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in applying the six-year...more

SCOTUS: Timeliness of Fiduciary Breach Claim May Depend on Alleged Failure to Monitor Selection of Investment Options

On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the timeliness of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) breach of fiduciary claim regarding the selection of investments in a 401(k) plan is not...more

Supreme Court Decides United States v. Wong

On April 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Wong, No. 13-1074, together with United States v. June, No. 13-1075, holding that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s time limits are not jurisdictional...more

“Raging Bull” Settles but Its Repercussions Persist

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., et al., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (U.S. 2014) delivered a clear message to copyright holders and those who wish to capitalize on those copyrights. The...more

Newsletter: March 2015

In This Issue: - Main Article: .. Inter Partes Review and the ITC: The Benefits and Risks of Filing IPR on Patents Asserted in an ITC Investigation - Noted With Interest: .. Securities Act Claims...more

Tibble Supreme Court Argument: Fiduciaries Must Monitor Investments

Section 413 of ERISA provides in general that no action for breach of fiduciary duty may be brought after the earlier of: (1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach, or (B) in...more

The Truth in Lending Act and Rescission: Lessons Learned by Lenders from Jesinoski v. Countrywide

The Supreme Court just made mortgage rescission a little bit easier for borrowers and scarier for lenders in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans. Under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601-1677 (“TILA”), mortgage lenders...more

Supreme Court Issues Significant Decision Interpreting Truth In Lending Act

In a unanimous decision issued on January 13, the Supreme Court held that a borrower exercises its right to rescind under Section 1635 of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), simply by notifying its creditor of its intent to...more

Truth In Lending Act Requires Notice, Not Suit

In a unanimous and brief five page opinion, both rarities for the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans (Docket 13-684, Jan. 13, 2015) made clear that the Federal Truth in Lending Act...more

Rescission of Home Mortgage Loans

The Truth-in-Lending Act (“Act”) was adopted in 1969. It has spawned dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of administrative rules and interpretations. Recently, the United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to address the...more

Borrowers Need Not File Suit to Rescind Mortgage Loan Under TILA, U.S. Supreme Court Holds

Why it matters - In a victory for consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) does not require borrowers to file suit to rescind a mortgage loan transaction within the...more

135 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×