"The court found that this proposed alternative action did not pass the 'more harm than good test': 'The Court cannot say that attempting to prevent Exxon's alleged misrepresentations would have been so clearly beneficial that a prudent fiduciary could not conclude that it would be more likely to harm the fund than to help it.' ... The court also rejected plaintiffs' (Jander-based) 'disclosure was inevitable' argument, finding that 'investigations into [as distinguished from the filing of charges against] Exxon by state attorneys general and the SEC' did not make it inevitable that the non-public information 'would come to light.' " [Fentress v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 16-3484 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2019)]  MORE >>