Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Committee

Case Updates

In its brief filed with the American Benefits Council, the U.S. Chamber urged the Fourth Circuit to affirm the decision of the district court, which held the Board of Directors did not breach their fiduciary duty because their failure to investigate did not cause any loss to the pension plan. The Chamber argued that the appellant's attempts to invent a new standard of fiduciary responsibility under ERISA should be rejected. The Chamber points out that the appellant's "comparative" or "relative" prudence standard finds no support in the text of ERISA, the legislative history, the regulations under ERISA, or case law under ERISA. Additionally, the Chamber argued that the Appellant's proposed "more likely than not" test is unworkable and fundamentally unfair.

Hollis Hurd of The Benefits Department served as counsel for the amici.

The court affirmed the district court’s holding that RJR breached its duty of procedural prudence and so carries the burden of proof on causation, but vacated the judgment in favor of RJR.

Click here to view the brief.