"Against the backdrop of strong statutory protections and the [DOL's] judgment that 'unnecessarily high pleading standards' should not be permitted to render such protections moot, the majority in effect embraces a heightened pleading standard which threatens to do exactly that. ERISA should not be gutted by the judicial imposition of a pleading standard with no basis in law.... While the majority rejects the significance of Plaintiffs' alleged 'warning signs,' I would find that, when taken together, these allegations support the reasonable inference that MSIM's choices failed to meet ERISA's requirements." [PBGC et al. v. Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Inc., No. 10-4497-cv (2d Cir. April 2, 2013) (Straub, dissenting)]  MORE >>