Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the court had “repeatedly held that a fiduciary may not materially mislead those to whom section 1104(a
• explaining that the inquiry turns on “a fiduciary’s conduct in arriving at an investment decision, not on its results”
• emphasizing that “ERISA’s duty to investigate requires fiduciaries to review the data a consultant gathers, to assess its significance and to supplement it where necessary”
• stating that “the thoroughness of a fiduciary’s investigation is measured not only by the actions it took in performing it, but by facts that an adequate investigation would have uncovered”
• noting that exercising control can include deciding to maintain assets in a certain investment
• finding triable issues of fact where plaintiffs alleged material misrepresentations and omissions regarding risks associated with certain investment options offered by plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).