| Tibble v. Edison International | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 24, 2015 Decided May 18, 2015 | |
| Full case name | Glenn Tibble, et al, Petitioners v. Edison International, et al. |
| Docket no. | 13–550 |
| Citations | 575 U.S. 523 ( more ) 135 S. Ct. 1823; 191 L. Ed. 2d 795 |
| Holding | |
| Because a fiduciary normally has a continuing duty to monitor investments and remove imprudent ones, a plaintiff may allege that a fiduciary breached a duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones. Such a claim is timely as long it is filed within six years of the alleged breach of continuing duty. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act | |
Tibble v. Edison International, 575 U.S. 523 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "because a fiduciary normally has a continuing duty to monitor investments and remove imprudent ones, a plaintiff may allege that a fiduciary breached a duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones. Such a claim is timely as long it is filed within six years of the alleged breach of continuing duty." [1]
