Coronavirus (COVID-19) News and Resources
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Webcasts
Subscribe to Free Daily Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

ESOP Valuation Writer
Unique ESOP Valuation Provider
Enrolled Actuary
Loren D. Stark Company logo
Loren D. Stark Company

Free Daily News and Jobs

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Get the BenefitsLink app LinkedIn

<< Previous news item   |   Next news item >>

What Does Supreme Court Rejection of Duty of Prudence Presumption Mean for Retirement Plans?
Dorsey & Whitney LLP Link to more items from this source
June 28, 2014
"[C]ases involving private companies tend to revolve around the price paid for the stock, and other issues involving conflicts of interest, corporate waste and other malfeasance that diminish shareholder value -- none of which involves the presumption of prudence. That being said, Dudenhoeffer is still very relevant to private companies insofar as it clearly eviscerates the legal argument that ESOPs and other retirement plans that hold employer stock have 'special' purposes -- seemingly affecting any decision to buy, hold or sell employer stock[.]" [Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751 (U.S. June 25, 2014)]

Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the link above).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® is providing a hypertext link to the item shown above, but is not the author of the item (unless otherwise specified).
© 2020, Inc.