Edgar v. Avaya, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
503 F.3d 340 · 2007
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1106 (§ 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1107 (§ 407 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1108 (§ 408 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson · Bixler v. Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund · Moench v. Robertson · Albert Oran v. John Stafford · Kuper v. Iovenko
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Prudent man standard of care "(1) Subject to sections 1103(c) and (d), 1342, and 1344 of this title, a fiduciary shall discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and- "(A) for the exclusive purpose of: "(i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and "(ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan; "(B) with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; "(C) by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so; and "(D) in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent with the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n ESOP fiduciary who invests the assets in employer stock is entitled to a presumption that it acted consistently with ERISA by virtue of that decision. However, the plaintiff may overcome that presumption by establishing that the fiduciary abused its discretion by investing in employer securities.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because one of the purposes of EIAPs is to promote investment in employer securities, they are subject to many of the same exceptions [to ERISA fiduciary duties] that apply to ESOPs-Conse-quently, EIAPs, like ESOPs, place employee retirement assets at much greater risk than traditional ERISA plans. Given these similarities, we conclude that the underlying rationale of Moench applies equally here. In sum, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that Moench’s abuse of discretion standard governs judicial review of the defendants decision to offer the Avaya’s Stock Fund as an investment option.”
3 later decisions 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.