O’Melveny represents the plan sponsor and other defendants in a class action in the Central District of California alleging that Edison fiduciaries had managed its 401(k) imprudently and disloyally. The claims included challenges to the inclusion of retail-class mutual funds, a unitized stock fund, and money market-style investments as plan investment offerings. The district court rejected most of plaintiffs’ claims on summary judgment or trial, allowing plaintiffs to prevail on a narrow claim that the plan fiduciaries should have investigated the possibility of offering institutional-class alternatives since expense ratios were a core investment criterion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. After granting certiorari on the Ninth Circuit’s determination that plaintiffs’ challenges to the inclusion of certain investment options were untimely, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. In remanding, the Supreme Court expressly left open for the Ninth Circuit’s consideration whether plaintiffs had forfeited any claim based on the theory of liability that the Supreme Court had determined to be timely.