Wilkins v. Allen

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[p]laintiffs allege in Count II” two different “theor[ies]” of imprudence and assessing each theory separately
• affirming dismissal of monitoring claim when plaintiffs failed to identify a breach of prudence by the plan committee
• \Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim for breach of the duty to monitor...absent an underlying breach of the duties imposed under ERISA\
• “Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim for breach of the duty to monitor ... absent an underlying breach of the duties imposed under ERISA[.]” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)
• “Although the language of [Dudenhoejfer] refers primarily to ‘over- or undervaluing’ stock, the ... Court applied [the heightened pleading] rule to the plaintiffs’ risk-based claims in that case,”
• “ERISA’s ‘fiduciary duty of care ... requires prudence, not prescience.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).