Investment Law Scholars' Amicus Brief in Hughes v. Northwestern University

Abstract

In Hughes v. Northwestern University, the Supreme Court is set to address "Whether allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment products or services are sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974." This amicus brief in support of petitioners argues for the importance of well-constructed retirement plan menus featuring curated low-cost options.

Keywords: Investment Law; Mutual Funds; ERISA; Supreme Court

JEL Classification: K22