“Employer securities” in retirement plans have been the source of a significant amount of litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). In general, “employer securities” are...more
The United States Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, declined to address whether plan participants sufficiently alleged breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as...more
In January, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165, a case that promised to clarify the pleading standard applicable to ERISA stock-drop cases. But...more
Brief Takeaway: Plan sponsors that offer employer stock in their benefit plans can breathe a sigh of relief, as the Supreme Court vacated one of the only plaintiff-friendly rulings in ERISA “stock drop” litigation. ...more
The United States Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion on Tuesday in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v Jander, punting back to the court of appeals the determination of whether plan fiduciaries can be liable under...more
On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165, remanding the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether to address the views of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court today in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165 (2020) (per curiam), declined to resolve questions about the pleading standard for a breach of fiduciary duty claim against fiduciaries...more
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to hear Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, a case about the legal standard for pleading a claim for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee...more
In a terse per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court in Amgen Inc. v. Harris, No. 15-278 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016), made clear that it expects lower courts to faithfully apply the pleading requirements for “stock-drop” cases...more
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Harris makes clear that the Court's heightened pleading standard applies to claims that a fiduciary of a retirement plan that has investments in employer stock should...more
The Supreme Court has provided additional clarity on the Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer decision. In Dudenhoeffer, the Supreme Court held that a fiduciary decision to invest in employer stock is not deemed to be...more
On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Harris, holding that the Amgen, Inc. employees who filed suit after the value of the employer stock in which they had...more
On January 25, 2016, in Amgen, Inc. v. Harris, 2016 WL 280886, the Supreme Court sent a strong message to the lower courts, plaintiffs and ERISA fiduciaries that pleading standards for breach of fiduciary duty prudence claims...more
Background — fiduciary obligations vs. ERISA’s specific nod to employer stock. Courts have long struggled to determine how to reconcile ERISA’s rules explicitly allowing participants in defined contribution plans to invest in...more
In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that fiduciaries of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) are not entitled to a special presumption that their...more
Did the future course of “stock-drop” litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against fiduciaries of public company employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) take a sharp turn on June 25, 2014, when...more
The Supreme Court, in Fifth Third Bancorp v. John Dudenhoeffer (Dudenhoeffer), recently established new standards for determining when fiduciaries of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) act prudently regarding a company’s...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Dudenhoeffer decision demonstrated that benefit plan fiduciaries are definitely in the litigation spotlight, and that they should exercise caution to avoid fiduciary liability in garden-variety...more
In the Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer decision issued June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “Moench presumption”, a presumption of prudence for employer stock held in an ESOP or a 401(k) plan company...more
The United States Supreme Court clarified the duty of prudence that employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries owe to plan participants in its June 25, 2014 decision Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer 134 S.Ct. 2459 (U.S....more
For the ESOP fiduciary of a publicly traded employer, the Supreme Court has made clear that non-public insider information is not required to be used in reaching a decision to buy, hold or sell employer securities....more
In the past, fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) and other defined contribution plans that invest in employer stock generally have been able to rely on a special “presumption of prudence” in court when...more
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision affects fiduciaries of retirement plans that have investments in employer stock. In the decision, the Supreme Court held that a retirement plan fiduciary is not entitled to a presumption...more
On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer regarding the availability of relief against fiduciaries of an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) for alleged breaches of the...more
On June 25, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which is likely to change the future of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) stock drop litigation. ...more