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

Featured Jobs

Plan Consultant - DB/CB

MAP Retirement
(Remote)

MAP Retirement logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Pattison Pension
(Albuquerque NM / Hybrid)

Pattison Pension logo

Retirement Plan Consultant

MAP Retirement
(Remote)

MAP Retirement logo

Data Administrator II

DWC - The 401(k) Experts
(Remote)

DWC - The 401(k) Experts logo

Plan Administrator, Defined Benefit & Cash Balance

The Pension Source
(Remote / Stuart FL / NY / TX / Hybrid)

The Pension Source logo

Retirement Relationship Manager

MAP Retirement
(Remote)

MAP Retirement logo

Defined Benefit Plan Consultant/Actuarial Analyst

Sentinel Group
(Remote / Everett MA)

Sentinel Group logo

Regional Vice President, Sales

MAP Retirement
(Remote)

MAP Retirement logo

Retirement Plan Consultant

Sentinel Group
(Remote / Everett MA)

Sentinel Group logo

Temporary Document Specialist

BPAS
(Utica NY)

BPAS logo

Strategic Retirement Plan Consultant

Retirement Plan Consultants
(Urbandale IA / Des Moines IA)

Retirement Plan Consultants 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

Supreme Court Issues Summary Decision Limiting Claims Against ERISA-Governed ESOPs
SCOTUSblog Link to more items from this source
Jan. 26, 2016

"Agreeing that the fiduciary duties applied, the Court nevertheless cautioned that trial courts should be skeptical of claims involving publicly traded stock, doubting that ERISA fiduciary duties should be construed to require fiduciaries to violate the securities laws. Specifically, for claims that involve the failure to respond to inside (that is, non-public) information, the Court explained that 'a plaintiff must plausibly allege an alternative action that the defendant could have taken that would have been consistent with the securities laws and that a prudent fiduciary in the same circumstances would not have viewed as more likely to harm the fund than to help it'. " [Amgen Inc. v. Harris, No. 15-278 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016; per curiam)]  MORE >>

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).