Amgen Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Steve Harris, et al. (577 U.S. 308)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 25, 2016 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 577 U.S. 308 · 136 S. Ct. 758
- Decided
- January 25, 2016
- Term
- October Term 2015
- Vote
- 9–0
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
PER CURIAM. The Court considers for the second time the Ninth Circuit's determination that respondent stockholders' complaint states a claim against petitioner fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence. The first time, the Court vacated and remanded in light of Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2459, 189 L.Ed.2d 457 (2014), a case which set forth the standards for stating a claim for breach of the duty of prudence against fiduciaries who manage employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). On remand, the Ninth Circuit reiterated its conclusion that the complaint states such a claim. The Court now reverses and remands. The stockholders are former employees of Amgen Inc. and its subsidiary Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, who participated in plans that qualified under 29 U.S.C. § 1107(d)(3)(A) as eligible individual account plans. Like ESOPs, these plans offer ownership in employer stock as an option to employees. The parties agree that the decision in Fifth Third is fully applicable to the plans at issue here. See 788 F.3d 916, 935 (C.A.9 2014). All of the plans had holdings in the Amgen Common Stock Fund (composed, unsurprisingly, of Amgen common stock) during the relevant period. The value of Amgen stock fell, and in 2007, the stockholders filed a class action against petitioner fiduciaries alleging that they had breached their fiduciary duties,…
Excerpt of a 6,423-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.