held in an ERISA plan, fiduciaries elected to maintain the employer stock in the plan. Then the financial difficulties caused the employer stock to lose significant value, often resulting in the ERISA plan losing significant value. Subsequently, a class of employees brought a claim of breach of ERISA fiduciary duties alleging, inter alia, that a prudent fiduciary would not have maintained the employer stock in the ERISA plan given the company’s financial uncertainty; i.e., that a prudent fiduciary would have forced the sale of the employer stock. Under the latter set of circumstances, courts have generally scrutinized to a greater degree the prudence of decisions reached by ERISA fiduciaries. See, e.g., In re Schering-Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 420 F.3d 231, 233, 241-42 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Moench v. Robertson, 62 F.3d 553, 572 (3d
holding a shareholders cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes when shareholders and directors of a company asserted a right to stock which was hostile to the plaintiffs claim to the stock holding that complaint stated a claim under erisa for breach of fiduciary duty of among other things prudence where defendants continued to offer a company stock fund as a pension plan alternative when they knew that the stock price was unlawfully and artificially inflated holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding that plaintiffs claims that defendants artificially inflated the companys share price so that they could sell their stock at a huge profit was undermined by the fact that one of the four defendants did not sell his stock during the class period holding in action for breach of contract caused by wrongful foreclosure and sale of shares of stock plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair market value of the stock at the time of its sale