Photo of Philip L. Mowery

Philip L. Mowery

Subscribe to Philip L. Mowery's Posts

Philip L. Mowery joined the Chicago office of Vedder Price in the Executive Compensation & Employee Benefits group in 1988 and became a Shareholder in 1995.

He counsels a variety of corporations in the manufacturing and service industries on all aspects of employee benefits law, including the design, tax qualification, legal compliance, interpretation and communication of retirement plans and welfare benefit plans.

Contact:Read more about Philip L. Mowery

On August 7, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (the “Order”) directing the Department of Labor (“DOL”) to re-examine guidance on a fiduciary’s duties under ERISA regarding alternative asset investments in 401(k) and other defined contribution plans, and potentially issue one or more fiduciary safe harbors.  Alternative assets generally include private equity, real estate, commodities and digital assets.  The Order directs the DOL to take the above actions within 180 days.  The Order also directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to facilitate access to alternative assets for participant-directed defined contribution retirement savings plans, including revisiting “accredited investor” and “qualified purchaser” rules.Continue Reading Alternative Investments and 401(k) Plans

On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on the requirements for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss regarding an allegation that plan fiduciaries engaged in a prohibited transaction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  Cunningham v. Cornell University, 23-1007 (U.S. 2025).Continue Reading Cunningham v. Cornell University

Previously, we discussed the Seventh Circuit’s August 2022 decision applying the context-specific language in the Supreme Court’s Hughes v. Northwestern decision to affirm the dismissal of an excessive fee case brought against the Oshkosh Corporation. On September 22, 2022, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a similar excessive fee case brought against the Exelon Corporation.  In Baumeister, et al. v. Exelon Corp., plaintiffs claimed breach of fiduciary duty by Exelon’s 401(k) plan fiduciaries based on the failure to monitor recordkeeping, investment advisory, and investment management costs under Exelon’s 401(k) plan. The district court dismissed the case, stating that, similar to Albert v. Oshkosh, the plaintiffs’ pleadings did not include sufficient context-specific facts to rise to the level of plausibility required to survive a motion to dismiss.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Applies Seventh Circuit’s Albert v. Oshkosh Decision to Dismiss ERISA Excess Fee Case

In January 2022, the Supreme Court held in Hughes v. Northwestern University, 142 S. Ct. 737, that courts must apply a context-specific inquiry to determine whether plan participants state plausible breach of fiduciary duty claims against plan fiduciaries for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) when selecting and monitoring investment funds and recordkeeping services under a plan.  In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Divane v. Northwestern University, 953 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 2020) (now known as Hughes), stating “The Seventh Circuit erred in relying on the participants’ ultimate choice over their investments to excuse allegedly imprudent decisions by [Northwestern fiduciaries].”  142 S. Ct. at 742.  Hughes is pending before the Seventh Circuit on remand.Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Applies Hughes v. Northwestern University to Dismiss