The Silent Issue in Intel v. Sulyma: Does ERISA Section 413(2) Operate to Time-Bar Otherwise Timely Suits Challenging Subsequent Breaches of the Same Character?

Benefits Law Journal 34 (1):1-17 (2021)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In its recent opinion in Intel v. Sulyma, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified what qualifies as the “actual knowledge” required to trigger ERISA’s three-year statutory period. The Court’s opinion, however, left open whether establishing “actual knowledge” by a plaintiff in one case serves to time-bar otherwise timely suits that challenge subsequent breaches of the same character. This article argues that, under the continuing fiduciary duty analysis that the Court set forth in Tibble v. Edison, such suits should not be deemed untimely.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
VANTSI-12
Upload history
First archival date: 2022-01-13
Latest version: 2 (2022-01-17)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2022-01-13

Total views
8 ( #66,964 of 65,737 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #58,071 of 65,737 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.