Document: Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AMGEN INC., ET AL. v. STEVE HARRIS, ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 15–278. Decided January 25, 2016 PER CURIAM. The Court considers for the second time Ninth Cir- cuit’s determination that respondent stockholders’ com- plaint states a claim against petitioner fiduciaries breach of duty prudence. first time, vacated and remanded in light Fifth Third Bancorp Dudenhoeffer, 573 ___ (2014), case which set forth standards stating prudence who manage employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). On remand, Circuit reiterated its conclusion complaint such claim. now reverses remands. stockholders are former employees Amgen Inc. subsidiary Manufacturing, Limited, participated qualified under 29 U.S. C. §1107(d)(3)(A) as eligible individual account plans. Like ESOPs, these offer employer an option to employees. parties agree deci- sion is fully applicable at issue here. See 788 F.3d 916, 935 (2014). All had holdings Common Stock Fund (composed, unsurprisingly, common stock) during relevant period. value fell, 2007, filed class action alleging they breached their fiduciary duties, including prudence, Employee Retirement Income Secur- ity Act 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, amended, §1001 et seq. District granted 2 INC. HARRIS fiduciaries’ motion dismiss, re- versed, Harris Amgen, Inc., 738 1026 (2013). sought certiorari. While petition was pending, this issued decision concerned owed by ERISA administer ESOPs. That decision, Third, held not entitled presumption but “subject same applies fiduciar- ies general, except need diversify fund’s assets.” S., (slip op., 1–2). Notwithstanding lack noted “Congress encourage creation ” stock-ownership plans, id., 14), purpose recognized may come into tension with ERISA’s general pru- dence. Moreover, ESOP confront unique chal- lenges given “the potential conflict” arises when alleged have imprudently “fail[ed] act on inside information about employer’s stock.” Id., 13). therefore laid out help “divide plausible sheep from meritless goats,” 15): “To state basis information, plaintiff must plau- sibly allege alternative defendant could taken would been consistent securities laws prudent circumstances viewed more likely harm fund than it.” 18). It further clarified courts should determine whether itself satisfying liability standard: “[L]ower faced claims also 3 consider has plausibly defendant’s position concluded stopping purchases— market might take sign insider fi- duciaries bad in- vestment—or publicly disclosing negative do good causing drop price concomitant already fund.” 20) (emphasis added). In matter once again before here, following issuance writ certiorari, va- cated judgment, proceedings decision. Harris, 576 reversed dismissal denied fidu- ciaries’ rehearing en banc. 916. holds failed properly evaluate complaint. court explained previous opinion (that is, one it decided) “had assumed” Third. F.3d, 940. And reasoned here satisfies those because federal require disclo- sure material information,” “quite plausible” removing “from list investment options” “caus[e] undue plan participants.” 937–938. Circuit, however, assess current form “has alleged” fiduci- ary “could concluded” “would good.” 4 supra, 20). Circuit’s proposition options satisfied Third’s be true. If so, facts allegations supporting appear Having examined complaint, found suffi- cient Although did correctly apply masters leaves instance amend order ade- quately plead guided provided certiorari granted. judgment reversed, opinion. so ordered.

Category: 7