Skip to main content

State Street litigation I

A bit of fascinating news this week was mostly overlooked.



The U.S. Supreme Court, on Monday, December 3, declined to hear an appeal from State Street Bank & Trust after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had given the go-ahead to litigation against it. So, without having to do the work of listening to arguments or  reading briefs and writing an opinion -- all that tiresome stuff -- the high court has determined this lawsuit will proceed.

The underlying lawsuit is a big enough deal to make that nod a big deal as well.

Here's a link to the 6th Circuit decision which, we now know, stands.

Before the fateful year 2008, auto giant General Motors offered its employees 401(k) plans with a variety of investment options, including mutual funds, non-mutual fund investments, and the General Motors Common Stock Fund itself. The later option was intended to enable both salaried and hourly employees to acquire an equity interest in their employer.

Defendant State Street was a fiduciary in this plan, and specifically had fiduciary responsibilities for the GM Common Stock Fund. The fund documents provided State Street with the responsibility, in the event that "there is a serious question concerning [the employer's] short-term viability as a going concern without resort to bankruptcy proceedoings" to divest employees' holdings in GM stock.

State Street eventually acted on this direction, although the plaintiffs claim it was a case of far too little and far too late. it began cashing out the GM employee interest in GM only on March 31, 2009. GM filed its bankruptcy petition on June 1 of that year, that is, two months and a day later.

Plaintiffs allege that State Street knew or should have known long before that where GM was headed, and that if they had cashed out the stock earlier they would have gotten a better price for it, thus serving faithfully in their capacity as fiduciaries.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case when it was originally brought at the district court level, and the district court judge granted that motion. The district court judge believed that there is a "safe harbor" protection for ERISA fiduciaries when the investor/beneficiaries control their own fate. Here, the fact that the employees themselves had had to voluntarily agree to put their 401(k) money into GM stock, and that the company stock wasn't even the default option for the plan, seemed to that judge to get State Street off the hook.

But in February 2012, the 6th Circuit reversed the court below. It said there is a safe harbor of sorts, but its safety is not so absolute as to absolve State Street of the duty to use "prudence when designating and monitoring the menu of different investment options...."

I hope to say something tomorrow about why this decision, now allowed to stand by SCOTUS, seems to me a very important one.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak