"Rather than identifying 'special circumstances,' Pfeil identified four specific dates on which State Street should have sold the plan's GM stock in light of the company's deteriorating financial condition. The [Sixth Circuit] strongly disagreed, characterizing Pfeil's argument as resting on a sleight of hand, hindsight analysis. The fact that State Street could have made a different investment decision does not mean that its decisions were imprudent, as courts evaluate a fiduciary's conduct as of 'the time it occurred,' not 'post facto.' " [Pfeil v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., No. 14-1491 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2015)]