In Re Electronic Data Systems Corp. "ERISA" Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77 · 15 U.S.C. § 772 · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77I (§ 9 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Z (§ 26 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Pinter v. Dahl · Venture Associates Corporation v. Zenith Data Systems Corporation · Rl v. Ct · Lovelace v. Software Spectrum Inc
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements do not apply. Allegations of breach of fiduciary duty are not necessarily fraud allegations. See Fink v. Nat’l Sav. & Trust Co., 772 F.2d 951, 959 (C.A.D.C.1985) (holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty). Only a breach of fiduciary duty claim which includes a fraud claim implicates Rule 9(b). Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1503 (9th Cir.1995), cert. dismissed, 517 U.S. 1183 , 116 S.Ct. 1710 , 134 L.Ed.2d 772 (1996) (“Rule 9(b) is applicable where the plaintiffs allege fraud, but not where they simply allege breaches of ERISA fiduciary duties.”); Precision Vascular Sys., Inc. v. Sarcos, L.C., 199 F.Supp.2d 1181 , (D.Utah 2002) (“Generally, a plaintiff pleading a claim for breach of fiduciary duty need only comply with Rule 8, not Rule 9(b), because this claim is not based on fraud.”). In this case, Plaintiffs have alleged breach of a fiduciary duty to inform. The sole basis of Defendants’ potential liability is breach of that fiduciary duty, not a common law or statutory fraud theory. Although fraud and breach of a duty to inform may both involve an omission, the Court does not find that every breach of a fiduciary duty to inform is a scheme to defraud.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Plaintiffs allege that the duty of loyalty ‘requires fiduciaries to speak truthfully to participants, not to mislead them regarding the plan or plan assets, and to disclose information that participants need in order to exercise their rights and interests under the Plan.’ First Am. Consolidated Class Action Compl. P 171. Defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties by not disclosing information which would have revealed problems with EDS stock as an investment, when Defendants allegedly knew that EDS stock was overpriced because EDS faced serious financial difficulties unknown to the public. In other words, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, as fiduciaries, offered their beneficiaries an investment which they knew to be unsound and concealed any information that would have allowed the beneficiaries to discover that the investment was unsound.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is typically premature to determine a defendant's fiduciary status at a motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.