Subscribe (Free) to
Daily or Weekly Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Regional Vice President of Sales

The Retirement Plan Company
(Remote / AL / FL / GA / MS)

The Retirement Plan Company logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Bates & Company, Inc.
(Remote / Winter Park FL)

Bates & Company, Inc. logo

Business Development Director

AimPoint Pension
(Remote / Pompano Beach FL / AL / GA)

AimPoint Pension logo

Loan & Distribution Specialist

AimPoint Pension
(Remote)

AimPoint Pension logo

Defined Benefit Combo Cash Balance Compliance Consultant

Loren D. Stark Company (LDSCO)
(Remote)

Loren D.  Stark Company (LDSCO) logo

Director of 3(16) Operations

Compass
(Remote / NH / Hybrid)

Compass logo

View More Employee Benefits Jobs

Free Newsletters

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

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile app icon
LinkedIn icon     Twitter icon     Facebook icon

Text of Ninth Circuit Opinion Allowing Amgen Stock Drop Lawsuit to Go Forward (PDF)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Link to more items from this source
Oct. 30, 2014

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)]

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 linked news item's title).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® created this link to the news item, but we are not the news item's author (unless expressly shown above).
© 2024 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.