Moore v. Beelman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that monies paid out of a fund, rather than the plan, are not considered a plan asset
• collecting cases from various circuits and concluding “[t]he principal distinguishing feature between [plaintiff- and defendant-friendly caselaw] is whether or not self-dealing is alleged.”
• collecting cases from various circuits and concluding “[t]he principal distinguishing feature between [plaintiff- and defendant-friendly caselaw] is whether or not self-dealing is alleged.”
• involving allegation that “MFS funds comprised ‘the vast majority’ – up to 98 percent – of the investment options in both Plans since at least 2011”
• holding allegations that defendants not only collected excessive fees for high-cost proprietary funds but also failed to shed those funds in favor of cheaper similar alternatives because to do so would have cost them their profits was sufficient state a breach of fiduciary duty claim
• finding the named plaintiff established standing to bring claims “on behalf of a plan in which she was never enrolled and for the period after which she closed her account”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).