Lalonde v. Textron, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 20 district ·

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[bjecause the important and complex area of law implicated by plaintiffs’ claims is neither mature nor uniform ... we believe that we would run a very high risk of error were we to lay down a hard-and-fast rule ... based only on the statute’s text and history, the sparse pleadings, and the few and discordant judicial decisions discussing the issue we face. Under the circumstances, further record development — and particularly input from those with expertise in the arcane area of the law where ERISA’s ESOP provisions intersect with its fiduciary duty requirements — seems to us essential to a reasoned elaboration of what constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty in this context.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Short v. Brown Univ. · 424 F. Supp. 2d 1002 - In Re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation

2. “[T]he district court’s analysis, while perhaps convincing on its own terms, failed to take account of plaintiffs’ allegation that, during the period identified in the complaint, Textron artificially inflated its stock price by concealing “the disparate problems throughout Textron’s segments and their adverse effect on Tex-tron which are the subject of a federal securities lawsuit by shareholders against Textron and certain of its officers and directors.” While this allegation is not terribly specific, Textron surely is aware of the nature of the charges it faces in the separate lawsuit. The allegation is thus sufficient to play its part in effectuating the purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a): to give Textron “fair notice of what [the plaintiffs’] claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” And, when combined with the other allegations, it is sufficient to clear the Rule 12(b)(6) hurdle.... The odds of plaintiffs succeeding on their breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Textron defendants might be very long, but “that is not the test.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 590 F. Supp. 2d 883 - In Re Ford Motor Co. ERISA Litigation

3. “Textron’s earnings per share declined by over 70%; Textron initiated a restructuring that was expected to culminate in the termination of over 10% of its workforce; Textron artificially inflated the price of its stock by concealing internal problems that led to its lost earnings and restructuring (malfeasance that was alleged to have been the subject of a federal securities lawsuit brought by Textron’s shareholders); and Textron common stock significantly underperformed in comparison to the market as a whole (measured in terms of the Standard & Poor’s 500) and Textron’s peer group. Despite this bleak scenario and in dereliction of their duties ... defendants continued to fund the Textron stock fund and prohibited the class from diversifying its retirement accounts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 694 F. Supp. 2d 67 - Kenney v. STATE STREET CORPORATION