Cryptocurrency In Small Bytes: Bitcoin in Your 401(k)? A Byte that May Bite
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.27.18
It was inevitable, the wild gains in certain cryptocurrencies have recently caught the interest of retirement plan sponsors and participants as a potential investment boom to 401(k) accounts, IRAs, and traditional pension plans. With approximately $28 trillion in U.S. retirement plan assets, the potential – and risks – are staggering. But are retirement plans even permitted to invest in these unregulated “currencies” under applicable legislation? If so, would it be a prudent investment? What are the risks to plan sponsors? Is it true that officers, directors, and other employees may have personal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for making these decisions? Here are some things to ponder as you gaze out into the Ethereum…
Investment by a retirement plan in cryptocurrencies is not a per se violation of ERISA. No specific regulation or guidance has been provided under ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code regarding whether pension and other retirement plans can properly invest in cryptocurrency. The matter, however, is certainly one that both the DOL and IRS are concerned about, especially since IRAs and other retirement vehicles are moving toward embracing some forms of investment in cryptocurrencies. The IRS has advised that for federal tax purposes, virtual currencies will be treated as property and certain self-directed IRAs have embraced cryptocurrencies as investments. But since IRAs are not subject to ERISA, it provides little comfort for 401(k) and pension plans. Many questions remain to be answered by the regulators regarding cryptocurrencies as a proper investment in retirement plans. For example, are they domestically situated “property” within the reach of U.S. courts? Are they a security? Is there sufficient “indicia of ownership” such as through U.S. cryptocurrency exchanges or crypto “wallets”?
It’s worth noting that those individuals who exercise discretionary authority or control over a retirement plan are considered fiduciaries under ERISA and have a duty to act prudently and in the best interest of plan participants. Could a decision to invest in cryptocurrency violate those duties – notwithstanding a push by plan participants to permit such investment opportunities? Absolutely. And that exposure under ERISA is a personal liability of the fiduciaries – meaning the personal assets of each board director, CEO, CFO, and other employees involved in administering the plan or its assets are at risk. That risk is something the retirement plan can’t indemnify against - and often, outdated D&O insurance doesn’t cover or cover sufficiently.
While cryptocurrencies seem certain to play some sort of increasing role in the domestic and world economies, retirement plan sponsors and participants need to be wary of these products – at least until the regulators provide further guidance. To do otherwise may personally expose corporate officers, directors, and other employees to fiduciary breach claims under ERISA.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
