A recurring scenario in ERISA litigation involves claims against fiduciaries of 401(k) retirement plans who are alleged to have breached their fiduciary duty by failing to discontinue investment in employer stock following a material drop in the stock price. The question is: Under what circumstances will a failure to stop investment in employer stock support a claim for breach of fiduciary duty? To date, every circuit—except the Sixth—that has considered the issue has applied a “presumption of prudence” that required a complaint to allege non-conclusory facts showing that the fiduciaries knew or should have known that the corporate employer faced dire circumstances that threatened its financial viability.
On June 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dudenhoeffer v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al., No. 12-751, categorically rejecting the “presumption of prudence.” The Court instead held that complaints in ERISA stock drop cases should be reviewed under Rule 12 “plausibility” standards, applying a “careful, context-sensitive scrutiny of a complaint’s allegations.”
Please see full alert below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Topics: 401k, Employee Benefits, ERISA, Fiduciary Duty, FIfth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer, Retirement Plan, SCOTUS, Stock Drop Litigation, US Bancorp
Published In: Business Torts Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Finance & Banking Updates, Labor & Employment Updates, Securities Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Morrison & Foerster LLP | Attorney Advertising