The U.S. Supreme Court in LaRue vs. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates has just given individual investors the right to sue under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty to recover individual losses to an individual 401(k) or other defined contribution plans. Previous Supreme Court decisions had pertained to defined benefits plans. Prior to LaRue v. DeWolff, individuals were limited to participating in class action suits for relief for the plan as a whole. Now, individual investors can sue to be "made whole" as individuals, and do not have to settle for equitable relief among all plan investors.

Mr. LaRue had sued his former employer DeWolff, Boberg & Associates for breach of fiduciary duty when it failed to follow his instructions to move some of his 401(k) money to different investments. His initial suit was to recoup a personal loss to be paid into his individual account. Having been denied by the Fourth Circuit Court under two different statutes of ERISA sec. 502, Mr. LaRue appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, thus doing an untold number of individual investors a great service.

In a landmark decision that will help millions of workers who participate in 401(k) plans at work, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that participants could sue 401(k) administrators if they believe the administrators of their 401(k) did not follow instructions and that lack of action resulted in loss of funds. More than 50 million workers invest their retirement savings through 401(k) funds and the total amount invested is $2.7 trillion. I'm glad the Supreme Court realized workers needed protection from administrators who don't follow instructions.

The case was brought by James LaRue of Southlake, Texas. His suit contends that he lost $150,000 in his 401(k) because the administrators of his plan did not move his holdings into safer investments as he instructed. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) allows individual account holders to sue plan administrators for breaching their fiduciary duties. The law specifically allows recovery to the "plan" rather than the individual. Justice John Paul Stevens said in his opinion for the court, "Fiduciary misconduct need not threaten the solvency of the entire plan to reduce benefits below the amount that participants would otherwise receive."