Glenn Tibble v. Edison International, 2013 WL 1174167

Edison International's 401(k) plan offered a large menu of investments, including retail-class mutual funds with higher fees and revenue sharing to a plan service provider.
Beneficiaries sued under ERISA alleging imprudent plan design and self-interested conduct by fiduciaries in selecting and maintaining investments.
District court granted summary judgment on most claims and held three-year limitations did not apply and a six-year clock started when investments were designated.
After trial, the district court found imprudence in including retail mutual funds but did not require converting all funds to institutional classes; damages were modest.
The plan's governance granted interpretive authority to the administrator, affecting the review standard for prudence and fiduciary duties.
On cross-appeal, Edison challenged class certification and argued §404(c) safe harbor precluded liability; the court addressed these issues as part of the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
timeliness of fiduciary-breach claims under §413	beneficiaries: continuous design decisions keep claims timely	Edison: three-year clock after actual knowledge; or six-year clock from last act	Claims timed from plan-design designation; no continuing-violation theory adopted
Does ERISA §404(c) safe harbor shield fiduciaries from liability here	defendant should be insulated by §404(c) as participants control assets	DOL interpretation allows liability where fiduciaries misdesign the investment universe	Chevron deference given to DOL interpretation; §404(c) did not preclude merits
Was revenue sharing and conflicts of interest under §406(b)(3) actionable	revenue sharing created prohibited consideration and conflict	DOL advisory opinions and organizational structure shielded conduct	Revenue sharing not a §406(b)(3) violation under controlling interpretation
Prudence of including mutual funds and alternative investment options	retail funds imprudent; institutional alternatives should have been explored	varied factors; retail funds justified by governance and costs; not per se imprudent	Imprudence found for failure to investigate institutional-share alternatives for three funds
Was class certification proper and typicality preserved on appeal	class representative claims adequately align with class interests	typicality concerns; co-pending funds create potential misalignment	Court reserved ruling on typicality/adequacy; declined to decide on appeal

Waller v. Blue Cross of California, 32 F.3d 1337 (9th Cir. 1994) (actual knowledge standard for breach under §413(2))
Phillips v. Alaska Hotel & Rest. Emps. Pension Fund, 944 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1991) (continuing-violation concept rejected for 413(1)(A))
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (U.S. 2009) (single-step/ Chevron framework for agency interpretations)
Langbecker v. Electric Data Sys. Corp., 476 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2007) (questioning Chevron deference to DOL interpretation of §404(c))
DiFelice v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 404 F. Supp. 2d 907 (E.D. Va. 2005) (context for deference to agency interpretations)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (U.S. 1989) (trust-based standard governs ERISA benefits actions; deference framework)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (U.S. 2008) (conflicts of interest do not strip deference in fiduciary reviews)
Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S. Ct. 1640 (U.S. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review under plan interpretations)