Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

High Court's Amgen Ruling Reaffirms Heightened Pleading Standard For ERISA Stock-Drop Suits
March 18, 2016

In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), the United States Supreme Court specified rigorous pleading requirements for so-called stock-drop suits brought against employee stock-ownership plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (FRIBA). In a recent per curiam opinion, the Court confirmed in no uncertain terms that it expects lower courts to fastidiously apply the Dudenhoeffer pleading standards. Amgen Inc. v. Harris, 577 U.S. __, No. 15-278 (Jan. 25, 2016). The Court's brief opinion is noteworthy for stock-drop defendants, who should still have a meaningful opportunity to challenge questionable fiduciary-breach claims at the pleading stage.

READ: High Court's Amgen Ruling Reaffirms Heightened Pleading Standard For ERISA Stock-Drop Suits

Originally published by Washington Legal Foundation.
Related Practices
Securities Litigation and Enforcement Labor & Employment
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.