U.S. Supreme Court,
Labor/Employment
Jul. 16, 2014
Presumption of prudence is imprudent
Fables are not just for children. In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that ERISA fiduciaries of ESOPs are not entitled to a "presumption of prudence."
Michelle L. Roberts
Partner
Kantor & Kantor, LLP
Labor & Employment
1050 Marina Village Pkwy, Ste 105
Alameda , CA 94501
Email: mroberts@kantorlaw.net
UC Berkeley Boalt Hall
Kantor & Kantor is a California-based law firm that represents insureds in ERISA-governed disability, life, health, and pension claims.
Fables are not just for children. In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court decided on June 25 that Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) (not to be confused with Aesop, although the prudence of such plans may provide Aesop-worthy lessons) are not entitled to a "presumption of prudence." Previously, this presumption, which the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In