Stock Fund be available for Plan Participants’ investments. Plaintiffs argue that even if the Plan documents indicate an intention that the Common Stock Fund must remain an available investment option, plan fiduciaries were bound by the duty of prudence to override such provisions to the extent that they required fiduciaries to take an objectively imprudent action. The Second Circuit has not determined whether there are circumstances in which a fiduciary is required to override plan terms. For instance, it has not addressed a situation in which plan terms require the fiduciary to offer employer stock that would otherwise be considered an imprudent investment. District courts have split on the issue. Compare In re Citigroup ERISA Litig., 2009 WL 2762708, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2009) (<HOLDING>) with Gearren v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 690
holding that a company that sold an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates  10b and rule 10b5 holding that an option to purchase stock is property under section 1129b2bii holding that there is no duty to override a plans mandate that company stock be offered as an investment option holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding as an investment for future development