Class Action Against Company Over Pension Plan To Go Forward.

After the value of a manufacturing company’s common stock fell, plaintiffs filed a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA; 29 U.S.C. § 18] against the company and its board of directors, alleging defendants breached their fiduciary duty under ERISA. The federal district court dismissed the company on the ground it was not a fiduciary and dismissed the board after applying the “presumption of prudence” articulated in Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp. (9th Cir. 2010) 623 F.3d 870. Afterward, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the holding in Quan in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer (2014) ___U.S.___ [134 S.Ct. 2459, 189 L.Ed.2d 457]. In the instant matter, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, stating: “We conclude that defendants are not entitled to a presumption of prudence, that plaintiffs have stated claims under ERISA . . . and that . . .[the company] is a properly named fiduciary under [its Plan].”  (Harris v. Amgen, Inc. (Ninth Circuit; October 30, 2014) 770 F.3d 865.)