Retirement Plans Committee of Ibm v. Jander
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 14, 2020 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- January 14, 2020
- Term
- October Term 2019
- Vote
- 9–0
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Unclear
- Ideological direction
- Unspecifiable
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 589 U. S. ____ (2020) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 18–1165 _________________ RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF IBM, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. LARRY W. JANDER, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT [January 14, 2020] PER CURIAM. In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), we held that “[t]o state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence” imposed on plan fiduciaries by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) “on the basis of inside information, 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.” Id., at 428. We then set out three considerations that “inform the requisite analysis.” Ibid. First, we pointed out that the “duty of prudence, under…
Excerpt of a 14,681-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.