June 26, 2014 - Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP v. DUDENHOEFFER: Supreme Court Rejects Special gPresumption of Prudenceh for Employer Stock
Decision provides a
useful roadmap
for plan fiduciaries.
Fiduciaries of Employee Stock
Ownership Plans
(ESOPs), defined contribution
plans that include an ESOP, and
plans that
include employer stock have generally been able
to rely on a
special gpresumption of prudenceh
when challenged in court over
their decisions to
continue to buy employer stock or offer that
investment option
if the stock has substantially
declined in value. In
Fifth Third
Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer (573 U.S. ___
(2014)), the U.S.
Supreme Court held that there
is no special presumption of
prudence applicable
to fiduciaries with respect to employer
stock. The Court
has, however, provided a roadmap to
the lower courts to use in
evaluating whether a
claim can proceed, the threshold for which
may not be
particularly easy for plaintiffs to
meet. This roadmap also
serves as guidance
to plan fiduciaries in connection with
employer stock
investments.
Background
In
the Fifth
Third case, former employees
brought suit against Fifth Third
Bancorp.
The plaintiffs alleged, in a gstock droph case,
that the
fiduciaries of the ESOP sponsored by
Fifth Third breached their
ERISA duty of
prudence by continuing to invest in employer
stock that the
fiduciaries either knew or should
have known was inflated in
value, and which
subsequently lost almost three-quarters of its
value. The
district court dismissed the case on
the grounds that the
plaintiffsf allegations
were insufficient to overcome the special
presumption of
prudence. The Sixth Circuit
reversed that decision, reasoning
that the
presumption of prudence did not apply at the
pleading stage.
The
Supreme Court
took the Fifth Third case
in order to consider whether a
presumption of
prudence applies to ESOP fiduciaries (sometimes
called the
gMoench presumptionh for an oft-cited
Third Circuit ruling). It
evaluated several
arguments set forth by Fifth Third.
Specifically, the
Court considered whether the
presumption of prudence should apply
because 1) it is
consistent with the intent of Congress in
fostering employee
ownership of employer stock;
2) the terms of the Fifth Third ESOP
plan document
commanded the ESOP fiduciaries to
invest in employer stock,
effectively waiving
the duty of prudence with respect to
investment in
employer stock; 3) enforcement of a duty of
prudence without the
protection provided by a
presumption of prudence would create an
inherent
conflict with prohibitions on insider trading;
and 4) without a
presumption of prudence,
frivolous lawsuits would abound, which
would deter
companies from offering ESOPs.
No
Special Presumption of Prudence
The
Court unanimously
agreed that there is no
special presumption of prudence uniquely
applicable to
fiduciaries with respect to ESOPs
or the decision to offer an
employer stock
investment alternative. It ruled that ERISA
narrowly alleviates
only the duty to diversify
within an ESOP and alleviates the duty
of prudence only
with respect to diversification.
These narrow provisions do not
give rise to a
greater presumption of prudence. With respect to
the argument
that the plan document mandated an
investment in employer stock
and that the
fiduciaries could not act contrary to the
document, the Court
found that the documents
cannot excuse fiduciaries from their
duties under
ERISA.
Drinker
Biddle Note:
Fiduciaries should be aware that provisions
within plan
documents that expressly require
investment in employer stock do
not eliminate
the duty of fiduciary prudence with respect to
continued
investment in employer stock. Sponsors
of plans that state that
fiduciaries must invest
in employer stock may wish to revisit the
wording of this
provision. |
The
Court also
considered the argument that, without
a presumption of prudence,
fiduciaries, who are
often company insiders, will be faced with
conflicts
regarding their responsibilities under
securities laws. For
example, an officer with
insider information who believes that
continued
investment in employer stock may not be prudent
could not act on
that information without
violating the insider trading
prohibitions. The
Court found that this was a legitimate
consideration, but not
one that created the
necessity of a presumption of prudence.
Finally, with
respect to the argument that, absent a
presumption of prudence,
participants might be
more inclined to bring meritless lawsuits,
the Court
acknowledged that this is also a
legitimate concern and that
district courts
could address this through careful scrutiny of
the complaintfs
allegations, rather than a
presumption of prudence.
A
Roadmap for the Lower Courts and for Plan
Fiduciaries
In
vacating the Sixth
Circuitfs decision and
remanding the case for reconsideration,
the Court
provides a roadmap of the elements of
judicial consideration in
determining whether
plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim. The
Court instructed
the lower court to use the
pleading standard established in prior
cases(that only a complaint that states a
plausible claim
for relief can survive a motion
to dismiss, and that determining
whether a
complaint states a plausible claim for relief is
context-specific).
The
Court laid out
key considerations to be taken
into account in determining
whether a claim
alleging a breach of the duty of prudence in the
context of a
stock drop scenario will meet the
gplausible claimh pleading
standard:
- Publicly available information: Where a
stock is publicly
traded, allegations that a
fiduciary should have recognized, from
public
information alone, that the marketplace was
either over- or
under-valuing employer stock are
gimplausible as a general rule,h
absent special
circumstances. As a result, generally a
fiduciary will be not
considered imprudent when
assuming that the market value of
employer stock
on a major exchange provides the best estimate
of the stockfs
value. The Court did
not elaborate on what
circumstances might give
rise to a situation where reliance on
the stock price
as set on a public exchange is not
considered
prudent.
- Insider information: A claim for the breach
of the duty of
prudence on the basis of inside
information will not withstand a
motion to
dismiss unless the plaintiff plausibly alleges
another course of
action that the fiduciary
could have taken. To be
plausible, the
course of action must be must be one that does
not violate or
conflict with securities
laws. Also, the course of action
must be one that
a prudent fiduciary in the same
situation would not have viewed
as more likely
to harm the employer stock fund than to help it
(e.g., could a
prudent fiduciary have concluded
that ceasing investment in
employer stock, or
selling stock, would have caused or worsened a
decline in the
value of the stock). The Court
suggested that SEC input on this
aspect may be
relevant to the analysis.
The
Court observed
that the Sixth Circuit had not
referenced any special
circumstances in the
Fifth Third case that would have
rendered the
fiduciariesf reliance on the market price of
the Fifth Third
stock imprudent. It also noted
that, to the extent the Sixth
Circuit was basing
its decision on the theory that the
fiduciaries
should have sold Fifth Third stock based on
insider information,
the denial of dismissal was
erroneous because ERISAfs duty of
prudence cannot
require an ESOP fiduciary to perform an
action, such as selling
employer stock on the
basis of insider information, that would
violate federal
securities laws. This suggests the
possibility that, upon remand,
the Fifth
Third case may not survive the motion to
dismiss.
Drinker Biddle
Note: Since
plan fiduciaries can no longer rely
on a presumption of prudence
with respect to the
investment in employer stock, they should
have procedures
in place to regularly review the
prudence of acquiring or
retaining employer
stock. Fiduciaries should ensure those
procedures are being
followed and the process
documented. Fiduciaries will also need
to determine how
best to evaluate the value of
employer
stock. |
The
elimination of
the presumption of prudence
should not discourage employers from
including or
retaining employer stock in their retirement
plans. The
Courtfs decision should prove
to be of benefit in creating a
functional
roadmap for both courts and plan
fiduciaries. Plan document
language
mandating investment in employer stock will not
be enough.
Future court challenges will
likely provide some guidance as to
what special
circumstances are relevant with respect to
reliance on publicly
available
information. In the meantime, fiduciaries
that have not
already done so will need to
develop and follow processes for
monitoring
employer stock, and the process should be
documented.