Illinois Compiled Statutes
40 ILCS 5/1-109 (2026)
Duties of fiduciaries
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(40 ILCS 5/1-109)
(from Ch. 108 1/2, par. 1-109)
Sec. 1-109. Duties of fiduciaries. A fiduciary with
respect to a retirement system or pension fund established
under this Code shall discharge his or her duties with respect to the
retirement system or pension fund solely in the interest of the participants
and beneficiaries and:
(a) for the exclusive purpose of:
(1) providing benefits to participants and their | beneficiaries; and |
(2) defraying reasonable expenses of | administering the retirement system or pension fund; |
(b) with the care, skill, prudence and diligence | under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character with like aims; |
(c) by diversifying the investments of the retirement | system or pension fund so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so; and |
(d) in accordance with the provisions of the Article | of this Code governing the retirement system or pension fund. |
(Source: P.A. 102-558, eff. 8-20-21; 103-464, eff. 8-4-23.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1997–2019 · leading case: Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2010).
Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2010). “For example, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that the Pension Code, 40 ILCS 5/1-109, establishes that a public pension board owes a fiduciary duty to its participants and beneficiaries.”
People ex rel. Madigan v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014). “Chief Justice Garman contends that the Attorney General’s complaint should be read as alleging that the four officer-elected trustees of the Board violated their fiduciary duty to act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” of the Fund (40 ILCS 5/1-109…”
Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Bd., 870 N.E.2d 273 (Ill. 2007). “" 40 ILCS 5/1-109 (West 2002). This fiduciary duty, however, is owed to all participants in the pension fund, not just plaintiff.”
Mattis v. State Universities Ret. Sys., 816 N.E.2d 303 (Ill. 2004). “In the case at bar, the terms of the trust are the terms of article 15 of the Pension Code, which is the portion of the Code that governs SURS. As noted, under the plain language of section 15-136(a) of the Code, the calculation of retirement annuities under Rule 2 is based on…”
Prazen v. Shoop, 2013 IL 115035 (Ill. 2013). “See 40 ILCS 5/1-109 (West 2010); see also Marconi v.”
People v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014). “Chief Justice Garman contends that the Attorney General’s complaint should be read as alleging that the four officer-elected trustees of the Board violated their fiduciary duty to act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” of the Fund (40 ILCS 5/1-109…”
Prazen v. Shoop, 2013 IL 115035 (Ill. 2013). “See 40 ILCS 5/1-109 (West 2010); see also Marconi v.”
Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authorit, 2014 IL App (1st) 123348 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “In the case at bar, plaintiffs allege that the Retirement Plan Board and the Health Trust Board owed plaintiffs fiduciary duties to act solely in their best interest as participants in and beneficiaries of the Retirement Plan and the Health Trust, pursuant to section 1-109 of…”
Sharp v. The Bd. of Trs. of the State Employees' Ret. Sys., 2014 IL App (4th) 130125 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “See 40 ILCS 5/1-109(a), (d) (West 2010) (a fiduciary must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and: (a) [f]or the exclusive purpose of: (1) Providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (2) [d]efraying reasonable expenses of…”
Matthews v. Chicago Transit Auth., 2014 IL App (1st) 123348 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “” 40 ILCS 5/1-109 (West 2008). Thus, we must first determine whether plaintiffs have alleged facts indicating that the Retirement Plan Board and the Health Trust Board were fiduciaries and, if so, that they breached their duties as fiduciaries to act solely in the interest of…”
Sharp v. The Bd. of Trs. of the State Employees' Ret. Sys., 2014 IL App (4th) 130125 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “See 40 ILCS 5/1-109(a), (d) (West 2010) (a fiduciary must act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and: (a) [f]or the exclusive purpose of: (1) Providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (2) [d]efraying reasonable expenses of…”
Clarence Gross v. Town of Cicero (7th Cir. 2010). “For example, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that the Pension Code, 40 ILCS 5/1-109, establishes that a public pension board owes a fiduciary duty to its participants and beneficiaries.”
— 40 ILCS 5/1-109(a) — 2 cases
Sharp v. The Bd. of Trs. of the State Employees' Ret. Sys., 2014 IL App (4th) 130125 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “See 40 ILCS 5/1-109(a), (d) (West 2010) (a fiduciary must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and: (a) [f]or the exclusive purpose of: (1) Providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (2) [d]efraying reasonable expenses of…”
Sharp v. The Bd. of Trs. of the State Employees' Ret. Sys., 2014 IL App (4th) 130125 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “See 40 ILCS 5/1-109(a), (d) (West 2010) (a fiduciary must act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and: (a) [f]or the exclusive purpose of: (1) Providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (2) [d]efraying reasonable expenses of…”
— 40 ILCS 5/1-109(b) — 2 cases
People ex rel. Madigan v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014). “Chief Justice Garman contends that the Attorney General’s complaint should be read as alleging that the four officer-elected trustees of the Board violated their fiduciary duty to act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” of the Fund (40 ILCS 5/1-109…”
People v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014). “Chief Justice Garman contends that the Attorney General’s complaint should be read as alleging that the four officer-elected trustees of the Board violated their fiduciary duty to act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” of the Fund (40 ILCS 5/1-109…”
— 40 ILCS 5/1-109(c) — 1 case
People v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014). “Chief Justice Garman contends that the Attorney General’s complaint should be read as alleging that the four officer-elected trustees of the Board violated their fiduciary duty to act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” of the Fund (40 ILCS 5/1-109…”
— 40 ILCS 5/1-109(d) — 3 cases
Mattis v. State Universities Ret. Sys., 816 N.E.2d 303 (Ill. 2004). “In the case at bar, the terms of the trust are the terms of article 15 of the Pension Code, which is the portion of the Code that governs SURS. As noted, under the plain language of section 15-136(a) of the Code, the calculation of retirement annuities under Rule 2 is based on…”
People ex rel. Madigan v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014). “Chief Justice Garman contends that the Attorney General’s complaint should be read as alleging that the four officer-elected trustees of the Board violated their fiduciary duty to act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” of the Fund (40 ILCS 5/1-109…”
People v. Burge, 2014 IL 115635 (Ill. 2014). “Chief Justice Garman contends that the Attorney General’s complaint should be read as alleging that the four officer-elected trustees of the Board violated their fiduciary duty to act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” of the Fund (40 ILCS 5/1-109…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|