to Invest in Company Stock Plaintiffs make no specific allegations that Jamesley or the Investment Committee knew of the alleged dire circumstances, including the withdrawals of prime brokerage deposits following Lehman’s collapse, what amount of withdrawals the Company considered catastrophic, and that the Federal Reserve loaned Morgan'Stanley money. Accordingly, Jamesley and the Investment Committee could not have breached their duty because the Complaint never claims they knew or should have known of those events. Gearren, 660 F.3d at 610; In re UBS AG ERISA Litig., No. 08 Civ. 6696, 2012 WL 1034445, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2012), aff'd, 513 Fed.Appx. 19, 24 (2d Cir.2013); In re Lehman Bros. Secs. & ERISA Litig., No. 09 MD 2017, 2011 WL 4632885, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2011) (<HOLDING>). Even if Jamesly and the Investment- Committee
holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary holding that similar language conferred discretion on the plan administrator holding the plan administrator who worked in human resources was not aware of lehmans imminent collapse despite similar warning signs and circumstances holding that because no plan document granted discretion to the plan administrator and because the fiduciaries had not expressly delegated their discretionary authority to the plan administrator the district court properly employed the de novo standard of review