"[T]he Sixth Circuit [recently] reiterated that 'the proper question' was whether the complaint 'pleads facts to plausibly allege that a fiduciary has breached its duty to the plan and a causal connection between that breach and the harm suffered by the plan -- that an adequate investigation would have revealed to a reasonable fiduciary that the investment in [company stock] was improvident.' ... By contrast, on September 4, 2012, the Second Circuit ... found that, where the plan terms 'require[e] or strongly favor[]' some investment in employer stock, 'plaintiffs must plausibly plead that [the employer] faced a "dire situation,"' in order to preclude dismissal." [Dudenhoefer v. Fifth Third Bancorp et al., No. 11-3012 (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 2012); In re Glaxosmithkline ERISA Litigation, No. 11-2289 (2d Cir. 2012)]  MORE >>