Harris v. Amgen, Inc.

ERISA plan terms did not require or encourage defendant fiduciaries to invest primarily in employer stock. The presumption of prudence articulated in Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., 623 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2010) did not apply to a claim that defendants acted imprudently and violated their duty of care by continuing to provide employer’s common stock as an investment alternative. They knew or should have known that the stock was being sold at an artificially inflated price due to material omissions and misrepresentations, as well as illegal sales. Fiduciaries’ duties of disclosure to ERISA plan participants are no less extensive than their duties to the general public under the securities laws. Employer is an ERISA fiduciary in the absence of a delegation of exclusive authority over the plan. District court erred in dismissing employer as a non-fiduciary merely based on delegation of authority to a "fiduciary committee". Delegation neither provided exclusive authority to the committee, nor precluded employer from acting on its own behalf.

     Harris v. Amgen, Inc. - filed June 4, 2013

     Cite as 10-56014

For More Information Contact us at:

http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/