The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
recently dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims leveled against
an actuary in the case Chua v. Shippee
(N.D. Ill., 2013) . The case arose out of a 412(i) life
insurance plan, which the IRS had disallowed and penalized the
sponsor and participants. The taxpayers sued an actuary who
had been involved in giving advice about the plan for breach of
fiduciary duties. The court dismissed the claims, because
being a fiduciary requires control over the plan or discretionary
authority over the administration of the plan or its assets.
Being an actuarial service provider to a plan, is not enough to
establish a fiduciary relationship, said the Court, regardless of
whether the actuary's advice is relied on:
As with the Reish defendants, plaintiffs also fail to allege
adequately that Shippee was engaged in fiduciary functions.
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Shippee gave them what
amounted to bad advice, but that does not make him a fiduciary. Nor
does the fact that the plaintiffs relied upon and followed
Shippee's bad advice make Shippee a fiduciary. Pappas v.
Buck Consultants, Inc., 923 F.2d at 538. Plaintiffs'
allegations make it clear that the decisions remained with
The court in Chua v Shippee, emphasized the fact that
the clients always retained the final decision-making authority and
so the elements for a fiduciary duty were not established.
From a legal liability standpoint, actuaries do not want to be
considered fiduciaries. The duty of care of a fiduciary is
higher; the scope of the duty can sometimes include liability for
breaches of co-fiduciaries; and the statute of limitations may be
different. Fiduciaries under ERISA may be sued by plan
participants while non-fiduciaries generally cannot.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It is unavoidable – public companies must disclose sufficient information to allow an independent accounting firm to perform the financial statement audits necessary for compliance with federal securities laws.
Determining the locus of ownership of intangible property related to the development of new products and services is one of the principal challenges that tax managers in multinational enterprises (MNEs) face on an ongoing basis. Tax managers must balance non-tax corporate objectives, tax efficiency, tax risk management, and financial reporting considerations.
Some project developers in the United States have been trying to reorganize recently as "master limited partnerships" in an effort to create more value in their companies. The move also gives them an acquisition vehicle that can afford to outbid other companies for existing assets.
On July 8, 2013 the full House of Representatives passed by a large, bipartisan margin the bill (previously reported on June 20) to prohibit the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board from requiring mandatory auditor rotation.
The Board has issued a proposal to indefinitely defer the effective date for disclosing unobservable inputs in Level 3 fair value measurements of investments held by a nonpublic employee benefit plan in its private company plan sponsor.