Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 13-1360
Defendants - Appellees.
--------------------------------------------------AARP; NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; THOMAS E.
PEREZ, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor,
Amici Supporting Appellant,
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE
AMERICAN BENEFITS COUNCIL,
UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA;
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:02-cv-00373-NCT-LPA)
Argued:
Decided:
August 4, 2014
Company
and
(collectively RJR).
R.J.
Reynolds
Tobacco
Holdings,
Inc.
He alleges that
burden
by
establishing
that
reasonable
and
prudent
We
affirm
of
the
courts
holdings
that
RJR
breached
its
duty
reverse its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
I.
A.
In March 1999, fourteen years after the merger of Nabisco
and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco into RJR Nabisco, Inc., the merged
company decided to separate its food business, Nabisco, from its
tobacco business, R.J. Reynolds.
The impetus
behind
of
the
spin-off
was
the
negative
impact
tobacco
Id. at 658-59.
offered
its
participants
the
option
to
invest
offered
six
fully
diversified
funds
--
some
their
The
containing
two
company
stock
funds
4
--
the
Nabisco
Stock
Nabisco Common Stock Fund was divided into two separate funds:
the
Nabisco
Group
Holdings
Common
Stock
Fund
(Nabisco
Holdings), which held the stock from the food business, and the
RJR Common Stock Fund, which held the stock from the tobacco
business. 1
The 401(k) plan at issue in this case (the Plan) was
created on June 14, 1999, the date of the spin-off, by amendment
to the existing RJR Nabisco plan.
Freezing
the
Nabisco
Funds
permitted
participants
to
participants
from
purchasing
through
the
Plan
Id. at 657-58.
Committee),
administration,
and
responsible
the
for
Pension
general
Investment
Committee
vested
the
Benefits
Committee
with
Plan
authority
to
The
make
any
meeting
or
by
an
instrument
in
requirement
in
writing
signed
by
the
the
governing
Plan
RJR
determined
to
eliminate
them
from
the
Plan.
RJR
Id. at 656-57.
Id. at 655.
The working
group discussed reasons to remove the funds [from the plan] and
assumed that [RJR] did not want Nabisco stocks in its 401(k)
plan due to the high risk of having a single, non-employer stock
fund in the Plan.
Id. at 656.
Id.
But
the
group
did
not
discuss
specifically
what
the
Id.
The working group agreed that the Nabisco Funds should be frozen
at the time of the spin-off and eventually eliminated from the
Plan.
different
ideas
were
thrown
out,
would
three
months
be
Id.
The
Robert
working
Gordon,
groups
RJRs
recommendation
Executive
was
Vice
reported
President
back
for
to
Human
of
Committee.
the
Gordon
Benefits
groups recommendation.
testified
Committee
at
agreed
trial
with
that
the
the
working
Id. at
657. 2
In the months immediately following the June 1999 spin-off,
the
Nabisco
Funds
declined
reacted
sharply
to
pending
against
RJR,
precipitously
numerous
which
class
continued
in
action
to
value.
Markets
tobacco
lawsuits
impact
the
value
of
Id. at 659-
throughout
1999
and
2000
rated
Nabisco
stock
positively,
Id. at 662.
In
early
October
1999,
various
RJR
human
resources
Id. at 661.
feared
doing
so
would
expose
RJR
to
liability
from
employees who had already sold their shares of the Nabisco Funds
in reliance on RJRs prior communications.
working
group
considered
that
this
Id. at 661-62. 3
perceived
liability
The
risk
Id. at 661.
Plan
would
investigate
them
require
on
the
fiduciaries
continuing
decided
against
hiring
basis
to
and
Id. at 662.
financial
monitor
at
and
significant
Nevertheless,
consultant,
outside
Funds.
believed
that
assistance.
Id.
the
Id.
Plan
Assertedly,
this
would
to
have
was
pay
so
the
because
cost
of
RJR
such
in
October
1999,
RJR
sent
Id.
letter
to
Plan
Id. at 663-64.
The
offer
Company
ongoing
stock,
eliminated.
The
Specifically,
the
in
frozen
individual
[Nabisco]
stocks
stock
other
funds
than
will
be
human
resources
manager
who
drafted
the
letter
Id.
the
statement
was
never
corrected,
even
after
Id.
Rather,
the
second
letter,
sent
in
10
January
2000,
repeated
incorrect statement.
statement
was
false,
but
nevertheless
January
27,
2000,
days
before
permitted
the
Id.
the
scheduled
sale,
In this e-
mail, Tatum asked that RJR not go through with the forced sale
of the Plans Nabisco shares because it would result in a 60%
loss to his 401(k) account.
wait to sell his Nabisco stock until its price rebounded, and he
noted
that
company
communications
had
been
optimistic
that
He
also
of
related
his
understanding
that
former
RJR
employees
In response
Id. at 667.
accounts.
and
January
31,
2000,
the
market
price
for
Nabisco
Holdings
stock had dropped by 60% to $8.62 per share, and the price for
Nabisco Common Stock had dropped by 28% to $30.18 per share.
Id. at 665.
RJR
invested
the
proceeds
from
the
sale
of
the
Nabisco
government
bonds.
Id.
The
proceeds
remained
in
the
same
time
as
RJR
eliminated
Nabisco
stocks
Id.
from
At
the
Id. at
665-66.
A few months after the divestment, in the early spring of
2000, Nabisco stock began to rise in value.
Id. at 666.
Id.
on
December
11,
2000,
Philip
Morris
acquired
Nabisco
Common
Stock at $55 per share and infused Nabisco Holdings with $11
billion
in
cash.
RJR
then
purchased
divestment
prices,
Nabisco
Holdings
for
these
share
prices
represented
an
increase of 247% for Nabisco Holdings stock and 82% for Nabisco
Common Stock.
Id.
B.
these
Plan
fiduciaries
breached
their
Tatum alleged
fiduciary
duties
further
claimed
that
their
fiduciary
breach
caused
2003,
the
district
court
granted
RJRs
motion
to
from
stating
fiduciary duty.
claim
against
the
defendants
for
breach
of
remand,
the
district
court
granted
RJRs
motion
to
committee
members
as
defendants,
which
the
court
The court
The court then held that (1) RJR breached its fiduciary
of
doing
so,
id.
at
651,
and
(2)
as
breaching
fiduciary, RJR bore the burden of proving that its breach did
not cause the alleged losses to the Plan.
held that (3) RJR met its burden of proof because its decision
to eliminate the Nabisco Funds was one which a reasonable and
prudent
fiduciary
investigation.
could
have
made
after
performing
such
an
interests
of
II.
Congress
enacted
participants
in
ERISA
to
employee
beneficiaries . . . by
benefit
establishing
responsibility,
and
obligation
benefit
and
by
plans,
protect
for
providing
the
plans
standards
fiduciaries
for
and
of
of
appropriate
their
conduct,
employee
remedies,
29 U.S.C.
fiduciary
duty
on
those
responsible
for
the
Cir. 1982).
15
his
duties . . . solely
in
the
interest
of
29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1).
the
The
skill,
prudence,
and
diligence
under
the
circumstances
with
enterprise
such
of
matters
like
Id. 1104(a)(1)(B).
would
use
character
in
and
the
conduct
with
like
of
an
aims.
plan
insofar
as
such
documents
and
instruments
Id. 1104(a)(1)(D).
are
And fiduciaries
the
circumstances
risk
it
1104(a)(1)(C).
of
is
large
clearly
However,
losses,
prudent
legislative
unless
not
to
history
under
do
so.
and
the
Id.
federal
not
prohibit
plan
trustee
from
holding
single-stock
breach.
Id.
1109(a).
Section
1109(a),
ERISAs
and
does
not
(as
liability
for
breach
the
of
dissent
the
claims)
duty
of
limit
prudence
fiduciarys
to
equitable
relief.
In determining whether fiduciaries have breached their duty
of prudence, we ask whether the individual trustees, at the
time they engaged in the challenged transactions, employed the
appropriate methods to investigate the merits of the investment
Inc.,
2007).
497
F.3d
410,
420
(4th
Cir.
Our
focus
is
on
whether
For
the
fiduciarys
[e]ven
if
imprudent
trustee
conduct
failed
to
caused
the
conduct
an
before
ERISAs
enactment.
DiFelice,
497
F.3d
at
interpreting
ERISA,
courts analysis.
story,
however,
protections
partly
Id.
the
common
law
of
trusts
417
Thus,
informs
because
reflect
ERISAs
a
standards
congressional
and
procedural
determination
that
protection.
Therefore, courts
employee
benefit
plans.
Id.
(internal
citations
and
loss
causation.
considered
whether
He
a
contends
reasonable
that
the
court
fiduciary,
after
us
breached
breaching
to
its
reverse
duty
fiduciary,
the
of
it
district
procedural
bore
the
burden
of
holdings
and
that
that,
proving
as
that
it
a
its
novo.
Plasterers,
663
F.3d
at
215
(internal
quotation
marks omitted).
III.
We first consider the district courts finding that RJR
breached its duty of procedural prudence. 6
A.
ERISA requires fiduciaries to employ appropriate methods
to investigate the merits of the investment and to structure the
investment as well as to engage[] in a reasoned decision[]making process, consistent with that of a prudent man acting
in [a] like capacity.
The duty of
evaluation
is
not
Id. at 423.
general
one,
but
rather
must
at
issue
and
the
circumstances
prevailing
at
the
Of course, a
Courts
fiduciary
acted
with
example, appointing
legal
and
financial
an
procedural
independent
expertise,
prudence,
fiduciary,
holding
including,
seeking
meetings
to
for
outside
ensure
monitor
and
performance.
receive
regular
updates
on
the
investments
Co., 555 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2009); Laborers Natl Pension
Fund v. N. Trust Quantitative Advisors, Inc., 173 F.3d 313, 322
(5th
Cir.
procedural
1999). 7
prudence
In
other
requires
words,
more
than
although
the
heart
pure
duty
of
and
an
citation
fiduciaries
omitted),
who
act
courts
have
reasonably
readily
i.e.,
determined
who
that
appropriately
Nabisco
stocks
lasted
no
longer
than
an
hour
and
focused
court
further
found
no
evidence
that
the
[working
such
as
maintaining
the
stock
in
frozen
fund
strategy
to
minimize
potential
immediate
loss
to
Id. at
680.
of
single
stock
fund,
as
well
22
as
the
emphasis
on
the
Id. at 678.
Id. at 680.
The district court found that the six month timeline for
the divestment was chosen arbitrarily and with no research.
Id. at 679.
the
stocks
would
be
removed
could
result
in
large
and
Id.
the purpose of the Plan, which was for long term retirement
savings, or the purpose of the spin-off, which was, in large
part, to allow the Nabisco stock a chance to recover from the
tobacco taint and hopefully rise in value.
Id. at 678.
The
[g]iven
that
the
strategy
behind
the
spin-off
was
23
The court also found that the only time following the spinoff
that
RJR
actually
discussed
the
merits
of
that
meeting,
participants
given
the
Gordon
were
Nabisco
raised
the
questioning
stocks
concern
the
continued
[March]
Id. at 681.
from
timing
the
of
decline
RJRs
the
in
CEO
In
that
elimination
value.
Id.
investigation
into
the
assumptions
underlying
its
March
Id. at 682.
view
at
that
the
loss
were
employees
a
who
problem,
cashed
and
out
there
their
was
Nabisco
fear
that
Id. at
the
Plan
option
of
amending
the
to
temporarily
unfreeze
the
Id.
Id.
Id. at 680.
Instead, the evidence showed that RJRs focus after the spin-off
was on setting a specific date for divestment and on providing
notice
to
funds.
participants
regarding
Id. at 680-81.
against
reexamining
the
planned
removal
of
the
original
decision
were
the
sum,
the
district
court
found
that
there
[wa]s
no
by
which
fiduciaries
investigated,
analyzed,
or
Id. at 679.
The court
in
lack
original).
of
effort
on
The
district
the
part
of
court
those
Id. at 681
concluded
considering
that
the
removal of the Nabisco Funds - from March 1999 until the stock
25
that
the
RJR
decision-makers
in
this
case
failed
to
Id. at 682.
C.
We cannot agree.
investigated,
analyzed,
or
considered
the
to
divest.
conducting
no
investigation,
circumstances
procedural
surrounding
imprudence
no
Id.
at
679
(emphasis
analysis,
the
or
divestment,
matter
what
added).
review
RJR
of
acted
level
of
scrutiny
failure
to
conduct
By
the
with
is
of
grappling
with
its
any
assertedly
trigger
lesser
standard
of
procedural
funds
are
imprudent
per
se due
to
their
inherent
risk.
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted));
29
C.F.R.
inquiry).
the
Department
Indeed,
of
Labor
in
promulgating
expressly
its
rejected
the
See
to
investment,
create
or
any
investment
list
of
investments,
techniques
deemed
classes
of
permissible
or
is
there
decision
to
sell
any
the
merit
to
employees
RJRs
Nabisco
contention
shares
that
merits
its
less
duty
to
minimize
the
risk
of
large
losses.
court
investigation,
found
RJR
forced
in
the
sale,
Plan
undertaking
within
an
arbitrary
invested.
the
of
declining
participants
any
of
sharply
which
without
timeframe,
face
funds
that,
share
prices
had
and
already
despite
share
prices
and
overwhelmingly
recommending
found
that
RJR
did
so
without
consulting
that
The court
any
experts,
for
its
employees
best
interests.
RJR
blinks
at
To the
of
Nabisco
stock,
within
an
arbitrary
timeframe
and
the
record
evidence.
RJRs
challenge
to
those
findings
fails.
IV.
We next address the district courts holding with respect
to which party bears the burden of proof as to loss causation.
A breach of fiduciary duty does not automatically equate to
causation of loss and therefore liability.
F.3d at 217.
Plasterers, 663
from
1109(a)).
each
such
breach.
Id.
(quoting
29
U.S.C.
But in Plasterers
we did not need to answer the question of which party bore the
burden of proof on loss causation.
In
this
question.
case,
the
district
court
had
to
resolve
that
The
court explained that once Tatum made a showing that there was a
breach of fiduciary duty and some sort of loss to the plan, RJR
assumed
the
persuasion)
burden (that
to
show
that
is,
the
the
burden
decision
to
of
remove
production
the
and
Nabisco
Tatum, 926 F.
We disagree.
But
and
one
such
exception
arises
under
the
common
law
of
trusts.
[I]n
matters
of
causation,
when
beneficiary
has
the
burden
considering
that
of
a
proof
was
causation
the
most
fair
approach
follow
see also Roth, 16 F.3d at 917 (stating that once the ERISA
plaintiff meets this burden, the burden of persuasion shifts to
the fiduciary to prove that the loss was not caused by . . . the
breach of duty.
31
State Teamsters Council v. Estate of DePerno, 18 F.3d 179, 18283 (2d Cir. 1994) (same). 10
We have previously recognized the burden-shifting framework
in an analogous context.
10
that
he
acted
fairly
and
reasonably.
Id.
at
426.
Thus, we held that the district court in that case had erred
when, after finding that the defendant breached his fiduciary
duty, it placed the burden on the plaintiffs to prove what, if
any, damages were attributable to that breach.
Id. 11
statutes
to
primary
objective
is
protect
the
interests
of
obligations
those
11
responsible
for
administering
RJR and the dissent suggest that our holding in U.S. Life
Insurance Co. v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank, 685 F.2d 887 (4th
Cir. 1982), supports their view that RJR did not bear the burden
of proof. They contend that in U.S. Life, we held that placing
the burden of proof on a plaintiff [here Tatum] to prove
causation is supported by trust law. Appellees Br. 21. But,
in fact, in U.S. Life, we dealt with the unique situation in
which a trustee breached the terms of an indenture agreement and
so assertedly violated state contract law.
685 F.2d at 889.
Because the parties relationship was principally contractual in
nature (a critical fact that both RJR and the dissent ignore),
we declined to apply a burden-shifting framework in what we held
was, in essence, a
typical breach of contract type of case.
Id. at 896.
Here, by contrast, ERISA - not a contract governs
the
parties
relationship,
and
expressly
imposes
fiduciary -- not contractual -- duties. Thus, U.S. Life offers
no support to RJR and the dissent.
33
employee
benefit
plans
and
plan
assets,
and
provides
for
Id.
As amicus Secretary of
Amicus
engaged
in
wrongful
conduct,
minimizing
the
fiduciary
Id. at 20.
34
V.
To carry its burden, RJR had to prove that despite its
imprudent
decision-making
process,
its
ultimate
investment
decision
is
objectively
prudent
Thus, we explained
if
hypothetical
145,
plaintiff
153-54
who
has
(3d
Cir.
proved
1999).
the
Under
this
standard,
defendant-fiduciarys
procedural
imprudence and a prima facie loss prevails unless the defendantfiduciary can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a
prudent
another
fiduciary
way,
would
have
made
plan
fiduciary
the
same
carries
decision.
its
burden
Put
by
that
Plasterers,
flows
from
immediately
breach
after
is
recognizing
baseless.
that
the
For
in
district
this
issue,
causation means.
663
F.3d
at
218
n.9,
we
stated
what
loss
Even if a trustee
12
926
F.
Supp.
2d
at
683.
But
the
court
See
nonetheless
added).
evaluated
the
The
manner
evidence
in
which
unquestionably
the
Id. at 690
district
demonstrates
court
that
it
See, e.g.,
manner
evidence
in
did
which
not
RJR
compel
did,
a
the
decision
court
to
concluded
maintain
that
the
the
Nabisco
added). 13
13
whether
its
divestment
Alternatively,
RJR
decision
maintains
was
that,
objectively
even
if
the
We address these
arguments in turn.
A.
RJR
acknowledges
that
the
causation
inquiry
requires
added).
But we, like our sister circuits, have adopted the would
have standard to determine a fiduciarys objective prudence.
As
the
Supreme
Court
has
explained,
the
distinction
between
See
In opining
ignores
Knight.
could
describes
what
There,
is
the
merely
Court
instructed
possible,
Id. at 192.
while
that
would
[D]etermining what
occurred,
by
spans
much
broader
range
of
at
something
188
is
(The
one
fact
reason
that
he
an
individual
would . . .,
but
could . . . do
not
the
only
possible reason.).
The would have standard is, of course, more difficult for
a
defendant-fiduciary
result.
to
satisfy.
And
that
is
the
intended
who have breached their obligations that, if they had not done
this, everything would have been the same.
Inc.,
605
F.2d
624,
636
(2d
Cir.
1979).
In re Beck Indus.,
ERISAs
statutory
We would diminish
14
the
same
thing:
that
fiduciary
who
fails
to
he
had
investigat[ed]
and
evaluat[ed]
beforehand.
Id.
Stated yet another way, the inquiry is whether the loss would
have occurred regardless of the fiduciarys imprudence.
Of course, intuition suggests, and a review of the case law
confirms, that while such blind luck is possible, it is rare.
When a plaintiff has established a fiduciary breach and a loss,
courts tend to conclude that the breaching fiduciary was liable.
See Peabody, 636 F.3d at 375; Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289
F.3d 1223, 1239 (10th Cir. 2002); Meyer v. Berkshire Life Ins.
Co., 250 F. Supp. 2d 544, 571 (D. Md. 2003), affd, 372 F.3d
261, 267 (4th Cir. 2004); cf. Chao v. Hall Holding Co., 285 F.3d
415, 434, 437-39 (6th Cir. 2002); Donovan v. Cunningham, 716
F.2d 1455, 1476 (5th Cir. 1983).
in
RJR
applying
maintains
the
that,
could
even
have
if
rather
the
district
than
would
fiduciarys
decision
was
objectively
prudent.
Indeed,
in
Preamble
Responsibility,
to
Rules
the
and
Department
Regulations
explained,
as
for
we
In
Fiduciary
noted
above,
that the risk level of an investment does not alone make the
investment per se prudent or per se imprudent.
Plan
Assets
under
the
Prudence
Rule,
44
Fed.
Investment of
Reg.
37,221,
that:
an investment reasonably designed - as part of a
portfolio - to further the purposes of the plan, and
that is made upon appropriate consideration of the
surrounding facts and circumstances, should not be
deemed to be imprudent merely because the investment,
standing alone, would have, for example, a relatively
high degree of risk.
Id. at 37,224 (emphasis added); see also Dudenhoeffer, No. 12751, 573 U.S. --, at 15 (Because the content of the duty of
prudence
time
the
turns
on
the
fiduciary
circumstances . . . prevailing
acts,
1104(a)(1)(B),
the
at
the
appropriate
original));
DiFelice,
497
F.3d
at
420
(holding
that,
when
the
could
have
standard
was
harmless
when
the
29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(D). 15
15
Accordingly, courts
have
found
breaching
fiduciarys
failure
to
follow
plan
the
Plan
terms
are
highly
relevant
to
the
causation
Appellants Br. 28
n.13; see also Mem. re: Legal Effect of Invalid Plan Amendment
at 2, Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Pension Inv. Comm. (2013)(No. 1:02cv-00373-NCT-LPA), ECF No. 365.
all
of
these
reasons,
after
careful
review
of
the
Particularly
divest
the
Nabisco
Funds,
including
the
timing
of
the
district
court
has
applied
may . . . have
Reversal is required
an
incorrect
influenced
its
[legal]
standard[]
that
ultimate
conclusion.
(1993).
The district courts task on remand will be to review the
evidence to determine whether RJR has met its burden of proving
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence
that
prudent
fiduciary
218. 17
must
In
doing
so,
the
court
17
consider
all
relevant
inquiry.
See
Dudenhoeffer,
weighing
all
of
the
evidence,
the
district
No.
Perhaps,
court
will
investments
at
the
time
and
in
the
manner
RJR
did
amount
to
selling
low
despite
court
must
reach
its
conclusion
Nabiscos
strong
applying
the
hypothetical
decision anyway.
prudent
fiduciary
would
have
made
the
same
(emphasis added).
C.
Before concluding our discussion of loss causation, we must
briefly address the dissents apparent misunderstanding of our
holding, the facts found by the district court, and controlling
legal principles.
46
for
objectively
prudent
investment
decisions.
It
Our
courts
decision
holdings
is
that
modest
RJR
one.
We
breached
its
affirm
duty
the
of
district
procedural
We simply remand
If the court
have
reached
the
same
decision,
RJR
will
escape
all
if
the
court
concludes
to
the
contrary,
then
the
law
requires that RJR be held monetarily liable for the Plans loss.
For,
as
fiduciary
noted
who
above,
Congress
breaches
any
has
of
expressly
provided
the . . . duties
that
imposed
[by
29 U.S.C.
So long as a
fear
monetary
liability
for
an
investment
decision
it
This is
proves,
optimal.
in
dissents
language,
less
than
acknowledges
the
uncertainty
investment decision.
fiduciaries
the
to
of
outcomes
inherent
in
any
undertake
reasoned
decision-making
process
litigation.
the
RJR
In
fiduciaries
the
for
dissents
doing
view,
nothing
we
more
are
than
(or,
more
precisely,
good
deal
less).
It
made
virtually
no
discussion
or
analysis,
without
RJR carried
Id. at 679.
And in doing
liability.
Id.
at
681.
Indeed,
the
extent
of
Because
its
objective
have
standard
simpliciter
test
is
in
fact
our
instructions
in
Moreover,
the
dissent
fails
to
acknowledge
the
alarming
to
effectively
this
standard,
unenforceable
any
talisman of diversification.
ERISAs
protections
time
fiduciary
would
invokes
be
the
plan
objectively
prudent.
investment
liability
fiduciary
assets
decisions
diversification,
This
beyond
provision.
could
would
As
claim
the
reach
result,
would
automatically
approach
that
ERISA
be
it
in
would
of
numerous
ERISAs
any
case
acted
neither
put
in
deter
deemed
fiduciary
in
which
pursuit
a
a
of
fiduciarys
29 U.S.C.
1109(a).
The
authorized
Department
to
of
promulgate
Labor,
the
regulations
body
Congress
interpreting
specially
ERISA,
has
imprudent.
Id.
A court
See Chevron v.
precedent
Unlike
diversification defense.
VI.
Finally, we address the district courts orders dismissing
the Benefits Committee and Investment Committee as defendants
and denying
individual
Tatum
leave
committee
to
members
amend
as
his
complaint
defendants.
We
to
name
the
review
the
former de novo, Smith v. Sydnor, 184 F.3d 356, 360-61 (4th Cir.
51
not
persons
capable
of
being
sued
under
ERISA.
That
estate,
employee
court
unincorporated
organization.
erred
in
reading
organization,
29
U.S.C.
this
list
association,
1002(9).
as
The
or
district
exhaustive.
That
the
ERISA
the
plan
instrument.
Id.
1102(a)(2).
The
statute
and
plan.
Id.
manage
the
operation
1102(a)(1).
This
and
administration
requirement
of
ensures
the
that
for
mismanagement
-52
are
focused
with
degree
of
certainty.
Here, the
FR-1.
And
this
and
other
courts
have
routinely
found
cases. 18
Accordingly,
we
must
reverse
the
courts
18
B.
After limitations had run, Tatum moved for leave to amend
his first amended complaint to name the individual committee
members.
an
additional
asserted
in
the
party
proposed
relates
back
amendment
when
arises
(1)
out
of
the
claim
the
same
conduct set forth in the original pleading, and (2) the party to
be added (a) received timely notice of the action such that he
would not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits,
and (b) knew or should have known that he would have been named
as defendant but for a mistake concerning the proper partys
identity.
concluded
Fed.
that
R.
the
Civ.
P.
15(c)(1).
The
district
individual
committee
members
were
court
not
on
notice that they would have been named as defendants but for a
mistake concerning their identity.
discretion in so holding.
54
Tatum
Committees.
named
as
defendants
only
RJR
and
the
Krupski
This, the
Supreme
making
mistake
Court
has
concerning
explained,
the
is
proper
the
antithesis
partys
of
identity.
Id.
Id. at 552.
VII.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district courts
holding that RJR breached its duty of procedural prudence and so
carries
the
burden
of
proof
on
causation,
but
vacate
the
56
to
hold
the
RJR
fiduciaries
It thus properly
personally
liable
for
believe
ERISA
allows
plan
fiduciaries
to
be
held
monetarily
Market
precedes
reasonable
investment
decision
includes,
much
the
further,
forcing
fiduciaries
wrong
three
times
over,
and
to
face
prospect
of
consequences
will
be
especially unfortunate for those who rely on ERISA plans for the
prudent
administration
of
their
57
retirement
savings.
As
for
fiduciaries
objectively
should
prudent
not
investment
be
held
monetarily
decisions.
This
liable
is
true
for
for
majority has adopted the wrong standard, one that strays from
the statutory test of objective prudence under then existing
circumstances, and one that trends toward a view of prudence as
the single best or most likely decision rather than a range of
reasonable
Despite
judgments
the
in
majoritys
the
uncertain
business
protestations,
its
of
investing.
reversal
of
the
the
RJR
fiduciaries
decision
to
liquidate
the
Nabisco
is,
first
and
foremost,
meant
to
protect
plan
result
from
funds.
The fiduciaries knew this fact and acted upon it, only
to
find
holding
that
prudent
undiversified
decisions,
single-stock
like
good
non-employer
deeds,
do
not
go
judges,
antagonists.
larger
we
tend
to
regard
the
parties
before
sense,
the
interests
of
plan
us
as
But, in a
participants
and
plan
is,
to
repeat,
doubtful
that
ERISA-plan
fiduciaries
29
loss
causation.
uncertain,
not
Because
every
investment
investment
outcomes
decision
that
are
always
leads
to
all
things
considered,
an
objectively
unreasonable
one.
personal
monetary
liability
under
1109.
In
Fink,
he
Indeed, the
example
Justice
Scalia
gave
--
an
investment
in
highly
is
more
reasonable
than
range
of
one
such
blue
investments
chip
that
stock,
qualify
as
there
is
objectively
prudent.
Although there is an evidentiary relationship between the
breach of a fiduciarys duty of procedural prudence and loss
causation, these two elements of fiduciary liability under ERISA
are distinct: It is the imprudent investment rather than the
failure to investigate and evaluate that is the basis of suit;
breach of the latter duty is merely evidence bearing upon breach
of the former, tending to show that the trustee should have
known more than he knew.
We
663
F.3d
at
217.
Rather,
in
order
to
hold
opinion
in
Fink).
The
loss,
in
other
words,
must
sister
circuits
have
also
generally
adopted
Justice
See, e.g.,
Renfro
Cir.
v.
(approving
Unisys
of
Corp.,
the
671
F.3d
314,
objective-prudence
322
test
(3d
for
2011)
fiduciary
Cir.
1995),
abrogated
on
other
grounds
by
Fifth
Third
fiduciary
may
be
quite
possibly
should
be)
requirement
corollaries.
plaintiffs
ERISA.
of
First,
burden
loss
loss
in
causation
causation
establishing
has
three
remains
monetary
important
part
of
liability
the
under
see
also
Plasterers,
663
F.3d
at
217
29 U.S.C
([W]hile
if,
as
the
district
court
found,
the
burden
of
Co.,
926
F.
Supp.
2d
648,
63
683
(M.D.N.C.
2013),
the
Schaffer ex
It also accords
burden
initiating
of
the
proof
is
proceeding
normally
and
allocated
seeking
to
the
relief.
party
Weast
v.
Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer, 377 F.3d 449, 452 (4th Cir. 2004),
affd, 546 U.S. 49.
The weight of circuit precedent supports keeping the burden
of proof on the party bringing suit.
Mut.
Ben.
(Jacobs,
damages
Life
J.,
is
Ins.
with
. . .
Co.,
138
Meskill,
an
element
F.3d
J.,
of
105
concurring)
the
[ERISA]
(2d
Cir.
1998)
(Causation
claim,
and
of
the
(noting
that
the
burden
of
proof
on
the
issue
of
64
that
their
claimed
losses
were
proximately
caused
by
the
fiduciary breach).
The
shifting
cases
the
cited
burden
distinguishable. 2
by
of
Tatum
proof
and
to
the
RJR
on
majority
loss
to
justify
causation
are
States Life Insurance Co. v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank, 685 F.2d
887 (4th Cir. 1982), in which we rejected
the novel proposition that, whenever a breach of the
obligation by a trustee has been proved, the burden
shifts to the trustee to establish that any loss
suffered by the beneficiaries of the trust was not
proximately due to the default of the trustee, and
that, unless the trustee meets this burden, recovery
against
course.
the
trustee
for
the
full
loss
follows
in
But even
where they do, they are not the sort of losses contemplated by
the 1109 remedial scheme, since it is unreasonable to fault a
prudent
even
investment
the
[t]he
best-laid
entire
Congress[s]
strategy
for
investment
statutory
overriding
the
plans
scheme
of
concern
in
statistical
often
go
ERISA
reality
awry.
Because
demonstrates
enacting
the
that
law
that
was
to
insure that the assets of benefit funds were protected for plan
beneficiaries,
it
follows
that
fiduciaries
who
act
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted)
66
(quoting
Brock
v.
Thirdly,
the
loss-causation
requirement
shows
how
the
Section 1109
other
removal
of
equitable
such
or
remedial
fiduciary.
29
relief . . . ,
U.S.C.
1109(a);
including
see
also
monetary
interests
loss
of
as
ERISA
result
are
of
furthered
the
imprudence,
by
entering
then
the
appropriate
positions.);
fiduciary
duty
to
Fink,
772
investigate
F.2d
and
at
962
evaluate
an
action
investments.)
relief
as
liability
causation.
(citation
removal
that
for
is
ERISA
the
damages
omitted).
in
direct
imposes
only
would
the
sustain
from
provision
contrast
of
an
arising
This
upon
(Breach
to
the
finding
losing
for
such
monetary
of
loss
equitable
remedies,
it
should
be
followed,
not
flouted.
The majority gets this all wrong.
provides for both monetary and equitable relief, and does not
(as the dissent claims) limit a fiduciarys liability for breach
of the duty of prudence to equitable relief.
(emphasis in original).
Maj. Op. at 17
a month-long trial that such losses did not result, because the
investment
decision
was
itself
objectively
prudent.
It
is
between
whether
hypothetical
prudent
fiduciary
would have or merely could have made the same decision that
the RJR fiduciaries did.
actions
in
could
have
making
those
decisions.
Br.
of
standard
creates
too
low
bar,
allowing
majoritys
claim
that
the
district
courts
approach
ERISA
C.F.R.
2550.404a-1(a).
As
result,
the
district
Rather,
it
asks
whether
hypothetical
prudent
plan
fiduciaries
should
have
utilized
inside
information
in
the
complaint
has
plausibly
alleged
that
prudent
Investing is as much
any
number
conceded
at
of
which
trial
may
that
be
prudent.
prudent
minds
Tatums
may
own
disagree,
one
that
plaintiff,
armed
with
all
the
advantages
of
Optimality is an impossible
The same
bench
trial,
that
defendants
made
an
objectively
would
have
standard
to
permit
Reading the
fiduciaries
to
majority
of
hypothetical
prudent
fiduciaries
would
more
Not only
to
of
relative
prudence:
whether
prudent
fiduciaries would more likely than not have come to the same
[investment] decision that defendants did.
the
fiduciary
district
who
court
conducted
on
remand
proper
to
divine
investigation
The majority
whether
would
a
have
71
prudent
decision
duty
to
make
the
best
possible
Take a scenario
with
view
that
happens
to
be
held
by
bare
See Br. of
It has
much
more.
Moreover,
all
its
fuss
over
would
the
straightforward
test
that
Plasterers
That is, of
articulated
663 F.3d at
here
practice.
showed
exactly
Prudence
how
depends
that
standard
inescapably
upon
But the
operates
the
in
particular
to
without
the
sketch
every
majoritys
situation
that
linguistic
might
arise.
contortions,
the
scholasticism
the
majority
adds
to
what
Even
law
of
The layer
should
be
make
of
matters
personal
worse,
the
liability
majority
on
remand.
all
In
but
directs
affirming
the
courts
extensive
factual
findings.
Id.
at
22.
findings
procedurally
substantive
that
imprudent
prudence,
the
RJR
fashion.
the
majority
fiduciaries
Yet
slams
when
the
acted
it
in
comes
door
on
a
to
the
at
45,
despite
ERISAs
express
command
that
fiduciaries
of
clearly
large
losses,
prudent
not
(emphasis added).
Courts
statement
unless
to
do
under
so.
29
the
circumstances
U.S.C.
it
is
1104(a)(1)(C)
1104
makes
clear
that
the
duty
of
Fifth
Third,
plan
slip
documents
op.
[are]
at
11.
highly
According
relevant
to
to
the
the
majority,
objective
prudence
loaded
calculus,
one
in
which
procedural
imprudence
all
but
D.
There is one final point.
But that in no
establishes
circumstances.
This
standard
is
of
prudence
rewriting
of
the
under
all
statute,
the
and,
the
statute
as
written,
the
standard
used
by
the
As
we
said
in
Plasterers,
quoting
the
Seventh
Circuit:
The only possible statutory purpose for imposing a
monetary penalty for imprudent but harmless conduct
would be to deter other similar imprudent conduct.
However, honest but potentially imprudent trustees are
adequately deterred from engaging in imprudent conduct
by the knowledge that imprudent conduct will usually
result in a loss to the fund, a loss for which they
will be monetarily penalized.
This monetary sanction
adequately deters honest but potentially imprudent
trustees.
Any additional deterrent value created by
the imposition of a monetary penalty is marginal at
best.
No ERISA provision justifies the imposition of
such a penalty.
75
where
interest
the
of
decision
was
diversifying
diversification
in
made,
plan
retirement
as
this
assets.
plans
is
one
The
was,
in
importance
reflected
in
the
of
ERISAs
Diversifications
ability
to
reduce
risk
while
preserving
adopted
both
by
the
investment
community
and
by
the
Diversification is even
A trustee
He is supposed to be careful
76
about
a
this
very
prohibition
Nabisco funds.
on
possibility
making
new
when
they
decided
investments
into
to
the
Indeed,
single
voluntary
plan
transfer
already
maintaining
contained
the
Nabisco
an
over
five-and-a-half-year
funds
would
77
single-stock
multiply
the
fund,
number
of
The
requirement
prudent rather
each fund.
than
that
management
aggressive
of
retirement
strongly
supports
plans
be
diversifying
are
See,
e.g.,
generally
disfavored
DiFelice,
497
F.3d
ERISA
at
424
investment
(noting
vehicles.
that
placing
and
so
purposes).
would
To
be
seem
sure,
generally
Congress
imprudent
has
for
provided
ERISA
limited
types
of
employer-only
1104(a)(2),
single-stock
1107(d)(3).
Still,
funds.
See
single-stock
29
funds
2014)
(emphasis
congressional
[t]here
is
in
carve-out
a
sense
in
original).
for
And
employer-only
which,
because
78
of
absent
this
narrow
single-stock
funds,
risk
aversion,
[a
RJR
Nabisco
funds
itself.
could
also
was
harm
Nabisco,
potentially
the
correlated
performance
of
the
with
of
RJR
that
Second, the
same external forces that could harm RJR - and thus imperil the
employment of plan participants - could simultaneously tank the
value of the Nabisco funds.
In other words, keeping the Nabisco funds in the RJR plan would
create the risks of an Enron-like situation, in which the health
of an employer and the retirement savings of its employees could
be adversely affected simultaneously.
stock
legislative
funds
that
might
have
sanction,
no
such
properly
threaten
to
diversifying
whipsaw
retirement funds.
of
seeing
plan
the
plan,
investment
the
managers
majority
of
and
pension
Tatum
and
and
79
participants
as
inveterate
adversaries.
Fiduciaries
act
to
the
and
they
do
so
participants,
inestimable
most
clearly
will
opportunistic
wreak
havoc
litigation
financial decisions.
to
upon
this
challenge
to
diversify
when
they
plan
follow
harmony,
even
of
the
encouraging
most
sensible
benefit
and
the
Nabisco
had
continued
to
decline, the fiduciaries would have been sued for keeping the
stocks.
80
As the
fiduciarys
measured in hindsight . . . .
actions
are
prudent
cannot
be
915,
1994)
918
(8th
Cir.
marks omitted).
(alteration
and
internal
quotation
be
context
specific.
Fifth
Third
Bancorp
v.
Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 573 U.S. __, slip op. at 15 (June 25,
2014) (alteration in original).
In
addition
to
the
diversification
imperatives
described
above, there were at least three reasons for the RJR fiduciaries
to eliminate, at the time they had to make the decision, the
Nabisco stocks from the RJR 401(k) plan.
Tobacco
Co.,
926
F.
Supp.
2d
648,
Tatum v. R.J.
659-60
(M.D.N.C.
Id. at 659.
the trial began in the fall of 1999, RJR began to worry that it
would not be able to fully pay a multibillion dollar award and
that
members
remainder.
of
the
class
Id. at 660.
would
sue
Nabisco
for
the
unpaid
Id. at 659.
And when
split was finalized, and January 31, 2000, when RJR sold the two
Nabisco
had
fallen
Id. at
666.
stocks
Cautious
in
its
401(k)
fiduciaries
plan,
would
82
their
naturally
prices
view
optimistic
Id. at 662-63.
noted,
no
reason
to
think
that
the
stocks
would
have
market.
Id.
at
686-88.
As
the
Supreme
Court
has
stock
prices
in
2000
--
the
bidding
war
sparked
by
analysts,
acquired
and
large
the
block
broader
of
market.
Nabisco
shares
Notably,
in
when
Icahn
November
1999,
Nabiscos stock prices did not react and analyst reports did not
mention a possible takeover bid.
initiated it.
Id. at 688-89.
was
prudent,
and
certainly
not
clearly
imprudent.
majority
has
reversed
the
most
substantiated
of
despite
all
the
words
from
84
majority
and
Tatum,
is
ERISA-plan
fiduciaries.
Who
would
want
to
serve
as
U.S.
Airways,
Inc.,
497
F.3d
410,
417
(4th
DiFelice
Cir.
2007)
(quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983)).
Yet far from safeguarding the assets of ERISA-plan participants,
the litigation
spawned
plan-administration
and
by
the
majority
insurance
will
costs.
simply
It
will
drive
up
discourage
It will
was intended to serve when fiduciaries are hauled into court for
seeking, sensibly, to safeguard retirement savings.
I
had
always
entertained
the
quaint
thought
that
law
trial
did
indisputably
the
right
thing
85
--
in