In Re Dynegy, Inc. ERISA Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the self-directed portion of the plan \always included an array of investment options\ the plaintiff \does not ... allege that the Plan was not diversified on its face.\
• “[t]he court cannot rule out the possibility of an ERISA recovery at the pleading stage simply because federal securities law may also provide relief.”
• conflict-of-interest claim failed where plaintiff neglected to identify source of any conflict
• “Because plaintiff alleges that the self-directed portion of the Dynegy Plan has always included an array of investment options and does not, therefore, allege that the Plan was not diversified on its face, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to state a claim....”
• “The Court nevertheless concludes that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against [the corporate defendants] for breach of the fiduciary duty to monitor because she has failed to allege . . . that any of them were on notice of possible misadventure by any of their appointees.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).