United States:
How Advisers Serving MEPs And PEPs Can Be Conflicted
18 August 2020
McDermott Will & Emery
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The most obvious potential conflict of interest for advisers
setting up or serving pooled employer plans is if their practice is
affiliated with the investments being selected-but there are other
potential pitfalls to acknowledge.
In a recent article, Erin Turley, a partner with McDermott Will
& Emery, said a potential conflict of interest for advisers to
PEPs would be if they were acting as either a 3(21) or 3(38)
fiduciary to help select investments and were paid from plan
assets.
Access the article.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Strategy from United States
ESG And The Sustainable Economy Handbook
K&L Gates
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and the sustainable economy are concepts that often overlap and frequently intertwine. Whether viewed separately or together...
Flexibility Is Key In Hybrid Capital Investment Strategies
Cohen & Gresser
In recent months, we have seen Blackstone announce that its tactical opportunities business raised $5.2 billion of capital commitments for its fourth flagship comingled fund, this being a substantially higher amount than its third fund.
Restaurant Sector | March 2024 Report
Ankura Consulting Group LLC
This month's Restaurant Industry Update highlights newcomers Sweetgreen and CAVA leading stock gains, alongside notable shifts in pricing strategy and subscription services among key players.