Skip to main content

State Street litigation II



As I noted in yesterday's entry, the U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to hear an appeal from State Street Bank & Trust after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals gave the go-ahead to litigation against it brought by former (pre-bankruptcy) employees of General Motors.

State Street had tried to get this case squashed on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted (the old-fashioned term for that was a demurrer).  SCOTUS' non-decision decision means that it has failed in that effort.

State Street's claim had been that ERISA shielded it from immunity. Other fiduciaries in similar situations may continue to make such claims (outside of the 6th Circuit), because SCOTUS' s refusal to take an appeal has no precedential significance.  Still, the 6th Circuit, which consists of the federal districts within Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan, ain't peanuts, and the 6th Circuits decision is sure to be cited elsewhere.

This means that workers (and their attorneys of course) may yet have a chance to make the case to a real live jury that they have been ripped off by the investment advisors who were supposed to be looking out for their retirement nest eggs, and who proved more-or-less wilfully blind. These workers seem to have gotten further toward that end than anyone else in their position with regard to the crises of 2007-08 yet has.

Here is a nicely worded passage from the 6th Circuit opinion:

"Finally, we recognize that sister circuits have reached the opposite conclusion and held that the Kuper presumption [of the fiduciary's good faith] should be considered at the pleadings stage. State Street cites this authority in support of its assertion that the plaintiffs must plead facts to overcome the presumption....we find these decisions distinguishable becaused these circuits have adopted more narrowly-defined tests for rebutting the presumption than the test this Court announced in Kuper."

Did you catch that? We find their decisions distinguishable because they are them and we are ourselves. That is pretty much the only distinction asserted there.

Good enough for me, and I am happy to say good enough for SCOTUS.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
7 comments
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
13 comments
Read more