Outside Counsel

ERISA Presumption of Prudence in 'Stock Drop' Cases Rejected

, New York Law Journal


Ronald E. Richman writes: What the Supreme Court in 'Dudenhoeffer' gives to plaintiffs in "stock drop" litigation with one hand—rejecting the special presumption of prudence favoring ESOP fiduciaries—it appears to take away with the other, by offering a road map of suggestions that, if honored by the lower courts, will make it difficult to maintain such litigation in the future.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202664128921

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.