42 pages. "It is true that removing the Amgen Common Stock Fund as an investment option would have sent a negative signal to investors if the fact of the removal had been made public, and that such a signal may have caused a drop in the share price. But several factors would have mitigated this effect .... If defendants had acted to remove the Fund as an investment option when Amgen's share price began to be artificially inflated -- that is, when some of the defendants began to violate their obligations under the securities laws -- that action may well have caused those defendants to comply with those obligations. But defendants did not do this.... [If] defendants had made no disclosures but had simply not allowed additional investments in the Fund while the price of Amgen stock was artificially inflated, they would not thereby have violated the prohibition against insider trading, for there is no violation absent purchase or sale of stock.... [D]efendants contend that their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to plan participants under ERISA, with respect to company stock, are less than the duty they owe to the general public under the securities laws. Defendants are wrong[.]" [Harris v. Amgen, Inc., No. 10-56014 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2014)]  MORE >>