Comparing Cunningham v Cornell to Steen v Sonoco

In this episode of Friday Fiduciary Five, Eric Dyson talks about two recent ERISA cases: Cunningham v. Cornell University and Steen v. Sonoco. In Cunningham, the court ruled that prohibited transactions can move a case forward, emphasizing the importance of 408(b)(2) disclosures and a documented process. In Steen, the court dismissed the case for lack of factual allegations, highlighting the need for detailed claims. Eric advises fiduciaries to monitor record-keeping fees, ensure reasonable compensation, and document processes. He notes that the Supreme Court's decision could increase prohibited transaction claims, especially in healthcare litigation. Eric stresses the importance of thorough documentation and regular benchmarking to meet fiduciary duties.Connect with Eric Dyson: Website: https://90northllc.com/Phone: 940-248-4800Email: [email protected] LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/401kguy/ The information contained herein is general in nature and is provided solely for educational and informational purposes.It is not intended to provide a specific recommendation of any type of product or service discussed in this presentation or to provide any warranties, financial advice or legal advice.The specific facts and circumstance of all qualified plans can vary and the information contained in this podcast may or may not apply to your individual circumstances or to your plan or client plan specific circumstances.