<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/11/15/presumption-of-prudence-for-fiduciaries-in-erisa-litigation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 13:57:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>“Presumption of Prudence” for Fiduciaries in ERISA Litigation</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/11/15/presumption-of-prudence-for-fiduciaries-in-erisa-litigation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=presumption-of-prudence-for-fiduciaries-in-erisa-litigation</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/11/15/presumption-of-prudence-for-fiduciaries-in-erisa-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:37:12 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gearren v. McGraw-Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In re Citigroup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=22996?d=20150113154035EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In companion decisions issued recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that retirement-plan fiduciaries should have the benefit of a “presumption of prudence” when faced with claims by employees concerning losses on their employer’s stock.  The cases are In re Citigroup ERISA Litigation, No. 09-3804-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 19, [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by George T. Conway III, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.wlrk.com/Page.cfm/Thread/Attorneys/SubThread/Search/Name/Conway,%20George%20T.%20III" target="_blank">George Conway</a> is partner in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &amp; Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum by Mr. Conway, <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/JLynch" target="_blank">John F. Lynch</a>, and <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/BRWilson" target="_blank">Bradley R. Wilson</a>. Another memo about the two court cases described below is available from Schulte Roth &amp; Zabel LLP <a href="http://www.srz.com/Second_Circuit_Adoption_of_the_Moench_Presumption_of_Prudence_Provides_Accommodation_for_Employers_Facing_Stock_Drop_Suits/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>In companion decisions issued recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that retirement-plan fiduciaries should have the benefit of a “presumption of prudence” when faced with claims by employees concerning losses on their employer’s stock.  The cases are <em><a href="http://www.wlrk.com/docs/InreCitigroup.pdf" target="_blank">In re Citigroup ERISA Litigation, No. 09-3804-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2011)</a></em>, and <em><a href="http://www.wlrk.com/docs/GearenvMcGrawHill.pdf" target="_blank">Gearren v. McGraw-Hill Cos., No. 10-792-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2011)</a></em>.</p>
<p>The two cases involved the same basic facts.  The retirement plans at issue mandated that employees have as one of their investment options a fund consisting mainly of their employer’s stock — Citigroup in one case, McGraw-Hill in the other.  After each company suffered a stock-price decline, plan participants complained that the fiduciaries should have seen the decline coming and either should have eliminated the employer stock fund as an option under the plan, or else sold the company’s stock out of the fund.  The plaintiffs claimed that the fiduciaries, by failing to do so, violated their duties of prudence and loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/11/15/presumption-of-prudence-for-fiduciaries-in-erisa-litigation/#more-22996" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading “Presumption of Prudence” for Fiduciaries in ERISA Litigation">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/11/15/presumption-of-prudence-for-fiduciaries-in-erisa-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
