Stephen Rosenberg of The McCormack Firm, LLC in Boston offers a concise summary of the meaning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer case. Rosenberg’s blog post features a roundup (with links) of the best online analyses of the meaning and impact of the decision, which rejected the widely applied “Moench presumption” in stock-drop cases.
Rosenberg’s bottom line: The Court “solved a troublesome riddle, which is how to balance the securities law obligations of corporate officers with ERISA’s fiduciary obligations, in a manner that neither distorted the statute — as was the case with the Moench presumption — nor encouraged the filing of stock drop suits against fiduciaries that lacked any basis other than the fact that a stock price had declined.”
John Ortman is NAPA's Communications Director.
