In its 2014 decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer,1 the U.S. Supreme Court held that fiduciaries of plans that hold publicly traded company stock are subject to the same duty of prudence that applies to fiduciaries in general under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §1000. In doing so, the Supreme Court effectively rejected decades of law applied by nearly all the circuit courts of appeals affording fiduciaries of company stock plans a special “presumption of prudence” not available to the fiduciaries of other varieties of ERISA plans.
In place of the presumption of prudence, the Dudenhoeffer decision announced new standards that apply when deciding whether a fiduciary of a company-stock plan acted prudently within the meaning of ERISA §1104(a)(1)(B). The overruling of the presumption of prudence is likely to have significant implications for future claims against these fiduciaries.
The Moench Presumption
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
