killing the fiduciary-friendly presumption of prudence, the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct.
2459, 58 EBC 1405 (U.S. 2014), erected significant barriers for plaintiffs
bringing stock-drop claims, attorneys said in a panel presentation.
The Dudenhoeffer ruling, while on its face benefitting participants in employer stock plans by eliminating a common defense to suits challenging declining stock value, arguably made it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring these challenges. The Dudenhoeffer court explained that claims based on publicly available information can't succeed absent “special circumstances,” while claims based on inside information require a showing of an alternate, lawful action that fiduciaries could have taken that wouldn't have been more likely to harm the plan.
wake of Dudenhoeffer, fiduciaries of employer stock plans have a number
of considerations that potentially could help insulate them from liability. The
panelists discussed several possibilities, including the appointment of independent
fiduciaries, removing or limiting employer stock from retirement plans and
adopting plan terms that mandate investment in employer stock.
panelists spoke Oct. 27 at the American Conference Institute's Eighth National
Forum on ERISA Litigation, held Oct. 27-28 in New York. Their panel was titled:
Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer: The Impact of the Decision on the Future of
Stock Drop Cases and Litigation Regarding Plan Investments.
participants no longer must show that their employer was on the brink of
collapse in order to overcome a judge-made presumption, they now must identify
nebulous “special circumstances” in order to bring claims based on publicly
the special circumstances that will satisfy this requirement will be a
challenge for future litigants, although the panelists hazarded a few guesses.
Wozniak, a shareholder with Greenberg Traurig LLP in Atlanta, raised the
possibility that “thinly-traded stock” might satisfy the newly articulated
Douglas Hinson, a partner with Alston & Bird LLP in Washington, added that
the federal courts have done little to elaborate on what special circumstances
might entail in the four months since Dudenhoeffer was decided.
said that when the panelists began planning for this conference session in the
aftermath of Dudenhoeffer, they expected to have many cases to discuss.
However, Hinson said that “all that's been happening so far has been a bunch of
Further, new complaints filed following Dudenhoeffer generally haven't been making noteworthy arguments under the newly-articulated “special circumstances” standard, said James P. McElligott Jr., a partner with McGuireWoods LLP in Richmond, Va.
absence of judicial guidance on special circumstances under Dudenhoeffer,
Hinson quipped that he would refer clients to Justice Potter Stewart's famous
line about obscenity.
like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography: you'll know it when you see
it,” Hinson said.
of how judges ultimately define special circumstances, the panelists appeared
to agree that Dudenhoeffer‘s call for special circumstances makes it
more difficult for employer stock plan participants to bring stock-drop claims
based on publicly available information.
Excerpted from a story that ran in Pension & Benefits Daily (10/28/2014).
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)