Supreme Court rejects stock-drop defense often used in 401(k) cases

High court says 'presumption of prudence' shouldn't be considered a special defense against lawsuits alleging breaches of fiduciary duty

Jun 27, 2014 @ 11:01 am

By Robert Steyer

supreme court, esop, defined contribution, 401(k), presumption of prudence, fiduciary duty
+ Zoom
(Bloomberg News)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously rejected a frequently used, successful defense by companies against stock-drop lawsuits filed by defined contribution plan participants.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices said a “presumption of prudence” invoked by employee stock option plans — based on nearly 20 years of federal court decisions — shouldn't be considered a special defense against lawsuits alleging breaches of fiduciary duty.

“We hold that no such presumption applies,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in the opinion for Fifth Third Bancorp et al. vs. Dudenhoeffer et al. “Instead, ESOP fiduciaries are subject to the same duty of prudence that applies to ERISA fiduciaries in general, except that they need not diversify the (ESOP) fund's assets.”

Rather than rely on the “defense-friendly” legal principle known as the Moench presumption, Mr. Breyer wrote that courts should evaluate stock-drop cases “through careful, context-sensitive scrutiny of a complaint's allegations.”

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Fifth Third case in April after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati had issued a different interpretation of the “presumption of prudence” principle than several other federal appeals courts.

These courts disagreed on the Moench presumption, articulated in 1995 by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, in Moench vs. Robertson. This principle gives a presumption of prudence to fiduciaries that offer company stock as an investment option in defined contribution plans.

Several federal appeals courts and federal district courts have issued rulings, citing the Moench presumption as applying to the motion-to-dismiss stage. The 6th Circuit said the Moench presumption should apply at the trial stage — a more relaxed standard for plaintiffs in stock-drop cases.

In Wednesday's ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the 6th Circuit decision and remanded the case to the appeals court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Mr. Breyer cited several guidelines for the 6th Circuit to determine whether the Fifth Third case meets the standards to proceed to trial, including:

• “Where a stock is publicly traded, allegations that a fiduciary should have recognized on the basis of publicly available information that the market was overvaluing or undervaluing the stock are generally implausible and thus insufficient to state a claim” under Supreme Court rulings in two previous cases.

• “To state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence, a complaint must plausibly allege an alternative action that the defendant could have taken, that would have been legal, and that a prudent fiduciary in the same circumstances would not have viewed as more likely to harm the fund than to help it.”

• “ERISA's duty of prudence never requires a fiduciary to break the law, and so a fiduciary cannot be imprudent for failing to buy or sell stock in violation of insider trading laws.”

Mr. Breyer rejected the argument by Fifth Third Bancorp that a weakening of the Moench presumption would make ESOPs and DC plans more vulnerable to lawsuits.

“We do not believe that the presumption here is an appropriate way to weed out meritless lawsuits,” he wrote. “The proposed presumption makes it impossible for a plaintiff to state a duty-of-prudence claim … unless the employer is in very bad economic circumstances. Such a rule does not readily divide the plausible sheep from the meritless goats.”

Robert Steyer is a reporter with Pensions & Investments, a sister publication.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Upcoming Event

Apr 30

Conference

Retirement Income Summit

Join InvestmentNews at the 12th annual Retirement Income Summit - the industry's premier retirement planning conference.Much has changed - and much remains to be learned. Attend and discuss how the future is full of opportunity for ... Learn more

Featured video

INTV

DOL fiduciary rule opponents and supporters sound off on Jan. 1 deadline

Senior reporter Mark Schoeff Jr. and managing editor Christina Nelson discuss the latest batch of comment letters on the regulation, this round focused on timing of the full implementation date.

Latest news & opinion

Is LPL's deal sweet enough for NPH's 3,200 reps and advisers?

They will have to decide if the signing package they are being offered by LPL makes sense. A lot is hanging in the balance.

Eduardo Repetto to leave Dimensional Fund Advisors

Gerald O'Reilly, currently co-CIO, will take over as co-CEO with David Butler.

Alternative strategies boomed after crisis, but haven't been tested

Because the S&P 500 has outperformed, convincing clients they need protection is a hard sell.

7 ways advisers fixed clients' biggest financial dilemmas

Sometimes it takes creativity, along with knowledge and outside help, to get a client out of a jam.

LPL Financial buys NPH, a broker-dealer network with 3,200 advisers

The deal, part of which is based on the advisers and revenue that eventually will move from NPH, could potentially cost LPL $448 million.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print