"[T]he district court here erred when it altered the language of Fifth Third to reach its holding. In Fifth Third, the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff's proposed alternative must be one that 'a prudent fiduciary in the same circumstances would not have viewed as more likely to harm the fund than to help it.' ... But here the district court stated that it could not determine, 'on the basis of the pleadings alone, that no prudent fiduciary would have concluded that [the alternatives] would do more good than harm' ... These statements are not equivalent. Under the Supreme Court's formulation, the plaintiff bears the significant burden of proposing an alternative course of action so clearly beneficial that a prudent fiduciary could not conclude that it would be more likely to harm the fund than to help it. Here, the stockholders have failed to do so." [Whitley v. BP, No. 15-20282 (5th Cir. Sept. 26, 2016)]

MORE >>