How plan sponsors choose to delegate responsibilities can impact their degree of liability.

W. Scott Simon   In this month’s column, I continue to mine the riches provided by federal district court judge Nanette Laughrey in her 81-

A solution where different entities provide different plan services to a plan has the double-barreled virtues of looking like a bundled plan, without actually being a bundled plan.

Plan sponsors may find it more difficult to mitigate the risk of its fiduciaries and to offer plan participants institutionally priced investment options with a product-driven bundled plan solution, writes Scott Simon.

The answer to the complexity, inefficiency, and unnecessarily expensive practice of revenue-sharing so well exposed in Tussey v. ABB is to simply do away with revenue- sharing, writes W. Scott Simon.

The best way to resolve the fiduciary dilemma lies in subjecting both RIAs and broker/dealers to the ‘sole interest’ fiduciary standard of care found in ERISA, argues W. Scott Simon.

Serving two masters in the realm of financial services is impossible, argues W. Scott Simon.

A poster child for the way in which a 401(k) plan should not be run.

The perception that trust companies and other such entities ordinarily provide legal protection to plan sponsors for the selection, monitoring, and replacement of plan assets is wrong.

Get the details on plan sponsors as default fiduciaries and how ERISA fiduciary status is determined.