Donna Marie COBURN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Appellant v. EVERCORE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Appellee
No. 16-7029
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued October 13, 2016. Decided December 30, 2016
844 F.3d 965
Of course, this would not be a problem had the earlier decision established the required factual link between Shoppette access and employee working conditions. But it did no such thing. Even though the Air Force insisted that conditions at Luke AFB did not justify civilian access, the Authority made no contrary findings, instead rejecting the Air Force‘s arguments by simply citing its own precedent. For instance, the Air Force argued that nothing in the record supported allowing civilians to purchase groceries “not ... ready for consumption.” Local 1547 I, 64 F.L.R.A. at 646. In response, instead of describing the circumstances that, in its judgment, made it necessary for civilian employees to purchase such groceries, the Authority simply stated that its “precedent does not support finding that only proposals involving prepared foodstuffs concern conditions of employment.” Id. The Air Force also argued that civilian employees had no need to shop during non-duty hours. Id. But rather than identifying the conditions on base that warranted off-duty access to the Shoppette, the Authority simply declared that “no decisions ... support [the Air Force‘s] assertion.” Id.
We could go on and on with more examples, but we think the point is clear: the Authority has entirely failed to establish a factual link between Shoppette access and base-employee working conditions. Although our role in reviewing negotiability determinations is limited, the Authority must find facts to give us something to review. Because it failed to do so in this case, we would grant the Air Force‘s petition for review on this ground were we not granting it on the antecedent ground that access to commissaries and exchanges falls outside the scope of collective bargaining.
IV.
We grant the petition for review and vacate the Authority‘s order.
So ordered.
Peter W. Overs, Jr., New York, NY, argued the cause for the appellant. Robert I. Harwood, New York, NY, was with him on brief. Daniel M. Cohen entered an appearance.
Before: HENDERSON and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS.
Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS.
Donna M. Coburn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, appeals the district court‘s dismissal of her complaint against Evercore Trust Company, N.A. (Evercore) pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
I. Background
While Coburn was employed by J.C. Penney, the large retailer offered its employees the opportunity to “save for their retirement” by investing in the J.C. Penney Savings Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). Its defined contribution plan was an “employee pension benefit plan” within the meaning of
On December 17, 2009, Evercore became the designated fiduciary and investment manager of the Penney Stock Fund. In this role, Evercore had the authority to restrict or limit the ability of Plan participants to purchase or hold J.C. Penney stock, including the power to “eliminate the [Penney Stock Fund] as an investment option under the Plan and to sell or otherwise dispose of all of the Company Stock held in the [Penney Stock Fund].” Evercore did not manage any other investment option available through the Plan.
In 2011, J.C. Penney attempted to reconceptualize its brand and hired former Apple, Inc. executive Ron Johnson as its chief executive officer. Distancing himself from J.C. Penney‘s historic reliance on sales, coupons and rebates to boost sales, Johnson implemented a more straightforward pricing scheme, reasoning that a “fair and square” pricing policy would attract shoppers. Johnson also reworked both the Company logo and the traditional layout of its stores in an effort to modernize. Taken as a whole, Johnson sought to bring J.C. Penney up to speed with the fads and fashions of 2012, simplifying the business model in order to lower expenses and increase gross profit margins. This strategy proved to be less than successful.
J.C. Penney‘s 2012 first quarter earnings report showed a $163 million loss, or a $0.75 loss per share. Johnson‘s poor start was only the beginning, as the next twenty-one months—from the end of 2012‘s first quarter to the end of 2013‘s fourth quarter—saw J.C. Penney‘s stock price fall from $36.72 to $5.92 per share. As market analysts became increasingly bearish regarding its stock, J.C. Penney cancelled dividends for only the second time since 2006. The disastrous performance led Johnson to a telling realization: the aban
Throughout the entire period that the value of J.C. Penney common stock dipped ever lower, Evercore stood resolute. Despite its authority to eliminate the Penney Stock Fund as an investment option in the Plan and its ability to sell shares currently in the Fund, Evercore exercised neither option. The shares in the Penney Stock Fund that Coburn and other investors owned took the full force of the hit. In 2015, Coburn sued on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleging that Evercore was liable for $300 million in losses to the Plan for having breached its fiduciary duty under
On February 17, 2016, the district court granted Evercore‘s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Primarily relying on the United States Supreme Court‘s opinion in Dudenhoeffer, the district court held that Coburn‘s allegations that Evercore should have recognized from publicly available information alone that continued investment in J.C. Penney common stock was “imprudent” were generally implausible absent “special circumstances” affecting the market. Because Coburn failed to plead special circumstances—indeed, Coburn expressly disclaimed any need to plead them—the district court held that Coburn‘s complaint could not survive Evercore‘s Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. The district court also rejected Coburn‘s alternative argument that, pursuant to Tibble v. Edison International, --- U.S. ---, 135 S.Ct. 1823, 191 L.Ed.2d 795 (2015), Evercore violated its fiduciary “duty to monitor” investments and remove imprudent ones. The court reasoned that Tibble did not affect the Dudenhoeffer holding and thus could not save Coburn‘s complaint. Coburn timely filed her notice of appeal.
II. Analysis
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. Taylor v. Reilly, 685 F.3d 1110, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The familiar pair of Iqbal and Twombly guide the analysis of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Under that precedent, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). That is, the complaint must include factual allegations that, when taken as true, rise above a “speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. It is “a plaintiff‘s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief [with] more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Dudenhoeffer, the Supreme Court further refined pleading requirements regarding “allegations that a fiduciary should have recognized from publicly available information alone that the market was over- or undervaluing the stock.” See Dudenhoeffer, 134 S.Ct. at 2471; accord In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 113 F.Supp.3d 745, 755 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (noting that Dudenhoeffer “appears to have raised the bar for plaintiffs seeking to bring a claim based on a breach of the duty of prudence” (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis removed)), aff‘d sub nom. Rinehart v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 817 F.3d 56, 66 (2d Cir. 2016). In Dudenhoeffer, a putative class of employees brought a claim against fiduciaries who
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court‘s dismissal of the complaint, holding that “where a stock is publicly traded, allegations that a fiduciary should have recognized from publicly available information alone that the market was over- or undervaluing the stock are implausible as a general rule, at least in the absence of special circumstances.” Id. at 2471. Driving the Dudenhoeffer opinion was the recognition that “investors ... have little hope of outperforming the market in the long run based solely on their analysis of publicly available information, and accordingly they rely on the security‘s market price as an unbiased assessment of the security‘s value in light of all public information.” Id. at 2471 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., --- U.S. ---, 134 S.Ct. 2398, 2411, 189 L.Ed.2d 339 (2014)). Dudenhoeffer was thus grounded in the efficient capital market theory—the “theory that security prices reflect all available information.” Yesha Yadav, How Algorithmic Trading Undermines Efficiency in Capital Markets, 68 VAND. L. REV. 1607, 1632 (2015) (citing Eugene F. Fama, Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work, 25 J. FIN. 383, 384 (1970)); Appellee‘s Br. 11-12. Indeed, according to the efficient capital market theory, a security price in an efficient market “represents the market‘s most accurate estimate of the value of a particular security based on its riskiness and the future net income flows that investors holding that security are likely to receive.” Yadav, supra at 1633; accord Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 246, 108 S.Ct. 978, 99 L.Ed.2d 194 (1988) (“[T]he market price of shares traded on well-developed markets reflects all publicly available information....“); “Where efficient markets exist, traders cannot profit by using existing information available in the market, since this news should already be reflected in securities prices.” Yadav, supra at 1633. Instead, a security‘s price fluctuates only on the “arrival of new information into the exchange.” Id. (emphasis added). Echoing this theory, Dudenhoeffer agreed that “[a] fiduciary‘s ‘fail[ure] to outsmart a presumptively efficient market ... is not a sound basis for imposing liability.‘” Id. at 2472 (quoting White v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., 714 F.3d 980, 992 (7th Cir. 2013)).
Thus, because a stock price on an efficient market reflects all publicly available information, Dudenhoeffer requires additional allegations of “special circumstances” when a plaintiff brings a breach of the duty of prudence claim against a fiduciary based on that information. Special circumstances, the Court instructed, includes evidence questioning “the reliability of the market price as an unbiased assessment of the security‘s value in light of all public information ... that would make reliance on the market‘s valuation imprudent.” Id. (quoting Halliburton Co., 134 S.Ct. at 2411) (internal quotation marks omitted). This evidence may demonstrate that illicit forces (such as fraud, improper accounting, illegal conduct, etc.) were influencing the market, Smith v. Delta Air Lines Inc., 619 Fed.Appx. 874, 876 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam), or may otherwise suggest that the market was not efficient and therefore the market price of a security in that market was not necessarily indicative of its underlying, fundamental value.1 See id. Ultimately, “[Dudenhoeffer] suggested that the special circumstances might include something like available public information tending to suggest that the public market price did not reflect the true value of the shares.” Allen v. GreatBanc Tr. Co., 835 F.3d 670, 679 (7th Cir. 2016).
Applying Dudenhoeffer here, we believe Coburn‘s claim falls far short. Despite the Supreme Court‘s instruction that claims of imprudence based on publicly available information must be accompanied by allegations of “special circumstances,” Coburn acknowledges that she “did not allege the market on which J.C. Penney stock traded was inefficient....” Appellant‘s Br. 21. Quite clearly, then, if Dudenhoeffer controls, Coburn‘s complaint was properly dismissed.2 Dudenhoeffer, 134 S.Ct. at 2471.
Perhaps recognizing the inadequacy of her claim under Dudenhoeffer, Coburn instead attempts to distinguish Dudenhoeffer, arguing that the additional pleading requirements set forth therein are inapplicable to her allegations. Appellant‘s Br. 11-12, 19-20. Coburn insists that her claim is not that Evercore over- or undervalued J.C. Penney stock but instead that Evercore exposed her to “outsized and unnecessary retirement savings risk” by failing to act as J.C. Penney stock value dipped ever lower. Id. at 11. This risk exposure, according to Coburn, was especially egregious given that the purpose of the Penney Stock Fund was to help employees like Coburn prepare for retirement—Evercore should have recognized its investors’ low risk tolerance. Id. at 19-20. In a nutshell, then, Coburn argues that Evercore was imprudent for continuing to hold J.C. Penney common stock when it became increasingly and excessively risky—a claim that should fall under Iqbal/Twombly instead of Dudenhoeffer.
Additionally, well-reasoned decisions by our sister circuits have also determined that risk-based claims must nonetheless meet Dudenhoeffer‘s pleading requirement to survive a motion to dismiss. For example, in no uncertain terms, the Second Circuit held that “the purported distinction between claims involving ‘excessive risk’ and claims involving ‘market value’ is illusory.” Rinehart, 817 F.3d at 66. The Rinehart court agreed that Dudenhoeffer “foreclose[d] breach of prudence claims based on public information irrespective of whether such claims are characterized as based on alleged overvaluation or alleged riskiness of a stock.” Id. (emphases and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 113 F.Supp.3d at 756). The Sixth Circuit also followed this approach in Pfeil v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., where it reiterated that the “excessively risky character of investing ESOP funds in stock of a company experiencing serious threats to its business ... is accounted for in the market price, and the Supreme Court held that fiduciaries may rely on the market price, absent any special circumstances affecting the reliability of the market price.” 806 F.3d 377, 386 (6th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Citigroup ERISA Litig., 104 F.Supp.3d 599, 615 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)); accord Smith, 619 Fed.Appx. at 876 (complaint must plead “special circumstances” whenever alleged breach stems from fiduciary‘s failure to act on public information).
Rinehart and Pfeil—like Dudenhoeffer—are grounded in the efficient capital
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.6
So ordered.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA“),
Coburn‘s purported class action complaint, on behalf of herself as a J.C. Penney ESOP participant and other current and former employees who participated in the J.C. Penney ESOP, alleged that Evercore Trust Company, N.A. (“Evercore“), the J.C. Penney ESOP fiduciary, violated its duty of prudence by failing “to evaluate the merits of the [ESOP‘s] investments on an ongoing basis and take all necessary steps to ensure that the [ESOP‘s] assets were invested prudently.” Compl. ¶ 67 (Jan. 13, 2015). According to the complaint, given the results of new management initiatives beginning in 2012, Evercore “knew or should have known that [J.C. Penney] stock was not a suitable and appropriate investment for the [ESOP], but was, instead, a highly speculative and risky investment in light of [J.C. Penney‘s] serious mismanagement and precarious financial condition.” Id. ¶ 69. Further, it alleged that a loyal and prudent fiduciary would “have in place a regular, systemic procedure for evaluating the prudence of investment in [J.C. Penney] stock.” Id. ¶ 70.
Opposing Evercore‘s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the ground the complaint “is identical to the claim alleged” and rejected in Dudenhoeffer, Mem. in Supp. of Def. Evercore Trust Co. N.A.‘s Mot. to Dismiss 6, Apr. 13, 2015 (“Def.‘s Motion“), Coburn pointed to the Supreme Court‘s May 18, 2015 decision in Tibble v. Edison International, --- U.S. ---, 135 S.Ct. 1823, 191 L.Ed.2d 795 (2015). She argued not only that Tibble “reconfirmed [Evercore‘s] fiduciary obligations under trust law and ERISA,” but that Dudenhoeffer “is only relevant in cases where the stock price is alleged to have been artificially inflated,” which “is not alleged here.” Pl.‘s Opp. to Def.‘s Mot. to Dismiss 1, 10, June 12, 2015 (“Pl.‘s Opposition“). Absent a claim that J.C. Penney stock was either overvalued or undervalued, Coburn asserted she did not need to plead special circumstances in order to survive the motion to dismiss. Id. at 10-11. In Coburn‘s view, Tibble “clarified that the duty of prudence under ERISA includes a duty to continually monitor the prudence of investments of plan assets.” Id. at 9. Evercore responded that Tibble “says nothing about whether Evercore breached the duty [to monitor] by failing to foresee the future decline in the price of J.C. Penney stock.... Dudenhoeffer already resolves this issue.” Reply Mem. in Support of Def. Evercore Mot. to Dismiss 2-3, July 13, 2015.
Surprisingly, Coburn does not raise a Tibble contention on appeal. See Op. 970 n.2; Concurring Op. 976 (Edwards, J.). Consequently, the question before this court is whether Dudenhoeffer is dispositive. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the role of ESOP fiduciaries gives rise to the “tension” between the “general duty of prudence” required of ERISA fiduciaries and the authorization of non-diversified, high-risk ESOPs. Amgen Inc. v. Harris, --- U.S. ---, 136 S.Ct. 758, 759, 193 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016); see also Pfeil v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 806 F.3d 377, 382-83 (6th Cir. 2015); Rinehart v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 817 F.3d 56, 63-65 (2d Cir. 2016); Gedek v. Perez, 66 F.Supp.3d 368, 372-74 (W.D.N.Y. 2014); Concurring Op. 977 (Edwards, J.). But neither the economic theory underlying the appropriate balancing of the duties owed by ESOP fiduciaries, nor the theory of ESOPs, nor the interaction between Tibble and Dudenhoeffer were briefed on appeal; Tibble itself is not mentioned in the briefs. Instead, Coburn places no reliance on economic theory. Her position on appeal is that “[c]ommon law concepts of fiduciary duty ... cannot be reconciled with [Evercore‘s] tortured reading which ignores Dudenhoeffer‘s distinguishable facts that made market efficiency a relevant topic there, but not here.” Reply Br. 1. She accepts that Evercore was an independent plan fiduciary with no inside information about J.C. Penney‘s prospects, see Appellant‘s Br. 11, and focuses on common law obligations where there is a “properly functioning efficient market,” Reply Br. 2.
Consequently it behooves the court not to endorse a particular economic theory that could have unforeseen and even unintended consequences in future ERISA litigation, much less in a class action, where the issues are squarely presented and a court must decide them. See Op. 969-70, 971-72. The economic theories underlying
The legal theory in Coburn‘s complaint is based nearly verbatim on the complaint filed in Dudenhoeffer. Compare Compl. ¶¶ 67-80 with Consol. Class Action Compl. for Violations of the Emp. Ret. Income Sec. Act ¶¶ 228-240, 246-48, Dudenhoeffer v. Fifth Third Bancorp, 757 F.Supp.2d 753 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (No. 08-cv-538) (“Dudenhoeffer Compl.“). Those theories from the Dudenhoeffer complaint were argued in the employees’ brief to the Supreme Court. See Br. For Resp‘ts, Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, --- U.S. ---, 134 S.Ct. 2459, 189 L.Ed.2d 457 (2014) (No. 12-751). The employees urged the Court to conclude, where ESOP fiduciaries “‘continued to allow the Plan‘s investment in Fifth Third Stock even during the time that the stock price was declining in value as a result of [the] collapse of the housing market’ ... that ‘[a] prudent fiduciary facing similar circumstances would not have stood idly by as the Plan‘s assets were decimated.‘” Dudenhoeffer, 134 S.Ct. at 2471 (quoting Dudenhoeffer Compl. at 53).
The Supreme Court in Dudenhoeffer was thus faced with virtually identical arguments to those Coburn brings to this court. That Court rejected as “implausible” the employees’ view that, based solely on publicly available information, a fiduciary‘s failure to divest from an ESOP whose stock price is declining has violated the duty of prudence, “at least in the absence of special circumstances.” Id. Coburn urges this court to conclude that Dudenhoeffer is inapplicable because her claim is not based on the over- or undervaluation of J.C. Penney stock, but rather that class members’ “risk aversion as retirement investors must also be taken into account by a fiduciary when assessing the prudence of continued investment of retirement funds over the long term.” Appellant‘s Br. 14. In her view, “Evercore should have discontinued investment in J.C. Penney stock precisely because the steady decline of the Company‘s stock price ‘accurately tracked the company‘s steadily worsening fortunes.‘” Id. at 21-22 (quoting Gedek, 66 F.Supp.3d at 375). In this context, she concludes, no “special circumstances” needed to be pleaded. Id. at 14.
Whatever merit there might be to Coburn‘s risk-aversion contention in the absence of Dudenhoeffer—a contention that
EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring:
I do not take issue with anything in the opinion for the court. I write only to emphasize what we do not decide today.
I agree that Coburn‘s claim of “outsized and unnecessary retirement savings risk” is foreclosed by the Supreme Court‘s decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, --- U.S. ---, 134 S.Ct. 2459, 189 L.Ed.2d 457 (2014). I write separately to emphasize that, in affirming the judgment of the District Court, we do not mean to denigrate the viability of a separate “duty to monitor” claim under Tibble v. Edison International, --- U.S. ---, 135 S.Ct. 1823, 191 L.Ed.2d 795 (2015). Although Coburn raised a duty to monitor cause of action with the District Court, she failed to preserve the claim and raise it on appeal. It is therefore forfeited.
Coburn raised two separate theories in support of her complaint alleging that Evercore breached its fiduciary duty. First, Coburn claimed that Evercore “knew or should have known that Company stock was not a suitable and appropriate investment for the Plan, but was, instead, a highly speculative and risky investment.” Complaint ¶ 69, reprinted in Joint Appendix (“J.A.“) 24. Second, Coburn claimed that “Evercore Trust failed to engage in proper monitoring of the Company Stock Fund.” Complaint ¶ 53, J.A. 20. Specifically, Coburn argued that Evercore “fail[ed] to have in place rudimentary trip wires that would have spurred a prudent fiduciary into action.” Complaint ¶ 54, J.A. 20.
Coburn cited facts indicating that J.C. Penney‘s stock plummeted between 2012 and 2013 because of CEO Ron Johnson‘s poor management. Johnson‘s misguided approach, including changes to J.C. Penney‘s pricing, the “store experience,” and the merchandise offered, cost the company stock plan approximately $300 million. See Complaint ¶¶ 19-20, 36-37, J.A. 11, 14-15. In the wake of Johnson‘s firing, analysts described Johnson‘s reign as “a tumultuous 17 months,” Stephanie Clifford, Chief‘s Silicon Valley Stardom Quickly Clashed at J.C. Penney, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 10, 2013, at A1; “a troubled stint,” Daisuke Wakabayashi, Corporate News: Apple Ex-Retail Chief Leads Startup, WALL ST. J., Oct. 24, 2014, at B2; and an “abysmal tenure,” Sean Williams, The Motley Fool‘s Worst CEO of the Year Is ..., MOTLEY FOOL (Dec. 12, 2013, 10:05 AM), http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/12/the-motley-fools-worst-ceo-of-the-year-is-2.aspx. Asked to describe Johnson‘s performance, a prominent former CEO responded: “There is nothing good to say about what he‘s done.” James Surowiecki, The Turnaround Trap, NEW YORKER, Mar. 25, 2013, at 44.
In light of these uncontested facts, Coburn asserted that Evercore did “absolutely nothing,” even though its “sole responsibility was to evaluate and monitor the
The opinion for the court properly distinguishes, as Coburn did, distinct theories of a breach of fiduciary duty:
Whereas Dudenhoeffer primarily focuses on allegations of misvaluation in the marketplace, see 134 S.Ct. at 2471, Tibble focuses on the prudence of holding particular investments over time, requiring a fiduciary to “conduct a regular review of its investment with the nature and timing of the review contingent on the circumstances.” 135 S.Ct. at 1827-28. Maj. Op. Part II n.2.
These theories are fundamentally different: Dudenhoeffer addresses the “over- or undervaluing” of a stock, 134 S.Ct. at 2471; Tibble, in turn, addresses the “fail[ure] to properly monitor investments,” 135 S.Ct. at 1829. Broadly speaking, Dudenhoeffer involves the substance of investment decisions, while Tibble has to do with a fiduciary‘s obligation to monitor those decisions. These theories embrace distinct, albeit not mutually exclusive, causes of action for violations of a fiduciary‘s duty.
I recognize that the holding in Tibble may be in tension with some of what the Court said in Dudenhoeffer. Nevertheless, Tibble post-dates Dudenhoeffer, and it is quite clear in what it says:
Under trust law, a trustee has a continuing duty to monitor trust investments and remove imprudent ones. This continuing duty exists separate and apart from the trustee‘s duty to exercise prudence in selecting investments at the outset. The Bogert treatise states that “[t]he trustee cannot assume that if investments are legal and proper for retention at the beginning of the trust, or when purchased, they will remain so indefinitely.” A. Hess, G. Bogert, & G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 684, pp. 145-146 (3d ed. 2009) (Bogert 3d). Rather, the trustee must “systematic[ally] conside[r] all the investments of the trust at regular intervals” to ensure that they are appropriate. Bogert 3d § 684, at 147-148.
....
In short, under trust law, a fiduciary normally has a continuing duty of some kind to monitor investments and remove imprudent ones. A plaintiff may allege that a fiduciary breached the duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones.
135 S.Ct. at 1828-29 (alterations in original).
It seems plain to me that Appellant‘s complaint and her argument to the District Court stated a cause of action under Tibble that easily should have survived a motion to dismiss. See Moreno v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., 15 Civ. 9936, 2016 WL 5957307, at *5-7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016) (citing Tibble, 135 S.Ct. at 1828-29) (denying motion to dismiss a failure to monitor claim); Northstar Fin. Advisors v. Schwab Invs., 135 F.Supp.3d 1059, 1075-76 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Tibble, 135 S.Ct. at 1828) (same). However, because it is not before us, we have no occasion to address the issue on appeal.
Notes
Coburn‘s argument fails, however, because she mischaracterizes the risk tolerance of ESOP investors. “Congress, in seeking to permit and promote ESOPs, was pursuing purposes other than the financial security of plan participants.” Dudenhoeffer, 134 S.Ct. at 2467-68. Although the alternative purposes are insufficient to create a presumption of prudence on the part of an ESOP fiduciary, id. at 2470-71, they nonetheless reflect a clear reality: Whatever evils [that exist in ESOPs] are endemic to the ESOP form established by Congress. A benefit of employees investing in their employer is that when the employer does well, the employees do well. A risk is that when the employer goes bankrupt, the employees do poorly. Pfeil, 806 F.3d at 387. Undiversified ESOPs are thus not fairly characterized as “low-risk” investments because of their direct relationship to the fortunes of a single company. Cf. Terrence R. Chorvat, Ambiguity and Income Taxation, 23 CARDOZO L. REV. 617, 630 (2002) (citing RICHARD A. BREALEY & STEWART C. MYERS, PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE FINANCE 153-56 (1996)) (elementary principle of finance instructs “ceteris paribus, a diversified portfolio of investments has less risk than an undiversified portfolio of stocks“). We therefore reject the premise of Coburn‘s claim that Evercore should have considered its investors as low risk (i.e., that Evercore should have applied an above-market risk discount) when assessing the prudence of continued investment in J.C. Penney common stock. This conclusion is in accord with Dudenhoeffer itself, which—as noted above—rejected the risk-based claims of ESOP investors with a similar risk tolerance. See supra at 971-72.