Bird v. Générès

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding plaintiffs’ expert “lacked the particular expertise necessary to provide useful opinions to the Court” 26 because he had “virtually no experience with” the type of retirement plans at issue
• finding that “while there were deficiencies in the [fiduciary’s] processes . . . plaintiffs have not proven that the Committee acted imprudently or that the Plans suffered losses as a result.”
• describing the issue at trial as plaintiffs’ “claim that NYU, through its Retirement Plan Committee . . . failed to fulfill certain of its fiduciary obligations under ERISA
• aff’d in relevant part 9 F.4th 95 (2d Cir. 2021)
• trial judgment in favor of the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).