Courts should “recognize that Congress and the SEC have already made a judgment about when a public disclosure would do more harm than good, and prudent fiduciaries should generally not second-guess that judgment,” an amicus curiae brief states.
Tag: company stock in retirement plans
The court decision highlights the difficulty in determining the fiduciary status of parties and of making claims for equitable relief based on allegations that ESOP stock purchases were overvalued.
A district court determined the plaintiffs did not plausibly plead a violation of ERISA’s duty of prudence, because a prudent fiduciary could have concluded that earlier corrective disclosure would have done more harm than good, mirroring many stock drop decisions handed down after the Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of participants invested in Boeing stock in all of Boeing’s defined contribution plans, alleges the firm breached its fiduciary duty by failing to inform participants of potential market losses due to 737 MAX airplane issues.
A U.S. Appeals Court rejected a District Court’s finding that was similar to many decision in lawsuits following the Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer.
A federal judge concluded for a second time that plaintiffs in the suit failed to meet a significant pleading standard set forth in a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
As in other recent stock drop litigation decisions, the plaintiff here ultimately failed to jump the high hurdle for standing set by Fifth-Third vs. Dudenhoeffer.
A federal district court judge found that additional allegations that alternatives to continuing to offer the company stock would lead plan fiduciaries to find they would not do more harm than good were not context-specific enough to the case.
The court found plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief based on ERISA’s duty to diversify and failed to state a claim for failure to engage in an adequate process for evaluating the prudence of continuing to hold the ConocoPhillips Funds.
The lawsuit alleges that Gannett Co., its benefit plans committee and other fiduciaries’ decision to concentrate plan investments in Gannett’s parent company common stock was a breach of their fiduciary duties under ERISA and caused a loss of approximately $135 million.
In addition to a monetary payment of $4.75 million, the bank agreed to non-monetary terms regarding payment and vesting of matching contributions to its 401(k) plan.
The court found participant claims did not meet standards set forth in Fifth Third Bank v. Dudenhoeffer.
Another employer win in a stock drop suit indicates it is tough for retirement plan participants to meet the pleading standards set forth in Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer.