whether a given allegation can plausibly constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. At least post-Iqbal, it is not enough simply to make a conclusory allegation that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties. Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts that make it plausible that a breach of fiduciary duty actually occurred. The applicability of the presumption of prudence directly affects the plausibility of an allegation that a particular action was imprudent. When the presumption applies, the factual allegations in the complaint must make it plausible that the defendants could not have reasonably believed that continued adherence to the terms of the plan “was in keeping with the settlor’s expectations of how p is insufficient); Crowley v. Corning, 234 F.Supp.2d 222, 227 (W.D.N.Y. 2002) (<HOLDING>); cf. Citigroup, 2009 WL 2762708, at *18-19
holding evidence legally insufficient holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that a 75 drop in share price is insufficient to overcome the presumption holding that an 80 drop is insufficient holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient