Moench v. Robertson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an “[Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”) ] fiduciary who invests the assets in employer stock is entitled to a presumption that it acted consistently with ERISA by virtue of that decision”
• noting that subjecting a fiduciary’s decision to invest in employer stock to strict judicial scrutiny would risk transforming ESOPs into ordinary pension benefit plans
• observing that “if the fiduciary, in what it regards as an exercise of caution, does not maintain the investment in the employer’s securities, it may face liability for that caution, particularly if the employer’s securities thrive”
• noting that ERISA does contain specific provisions which govern employee stock option plans
• remanding to the district court to develop the factual record and determine whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment
• indicating presumption applies where “fiduciary presumptively is required to invest in employer securities,” but not where the fiduciary is “simply permitted to make such investments”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).