ERISA LITIGATION: Major Supreme Court Decision Provides Guidance in ERISA Cases Alleging Excessive Fees

[...]the Court emphasized that the analysis of a plaintiff's allegations in an ERISA case "will necessarily be context specific," citing its decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer [573 U.S. 409 (2014)]. Hughes involved 403(b) plans, but the decision applies to 401(k) plans as well. Because the Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision in favor of the plan fiduciaries, some might argue that the Court's decision is a win and a game changer for plaintiffs. [...]substantively, the Court's decision was largely an affirmation of its earlier decision in Tibble-an approach that also is entirely consistent with prevailing plan management practices. The Court's decision in Hughes should operate to reverse this practice, and defendant plan fiduciaries will no longer be able to use this argument to secure the early dismissal of complaints. [...]one procedural Impact of Hughes is that courts will be less likely to grant motions to dismiss in fee cases because these cases are context-specific and the Supreme Court has not provided a bright-line pleading standard.