Richard Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Committ

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:02-cv-00373-NCT-LPA. [999408952]. [13-1360]

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 1 of 85

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1360

RICHARD G. TATUM, individually and on behalf of a class of
all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RJR PENSION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE;
COMMITTEE; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO
REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,

RJR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
HOLDINGS, INC.; R.J.

Defendants - Appellees.
--------------------------------------------------AARP; NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; THOMAS E.
PEREZ, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor,
Amici Supporting Appellant,
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE
AMERICAN BENEFITS COUNCIL,

UNITED

STATES

OF

AMERICA;

Amici Supporting Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:02-cv-00373-NCT-LPA)

Argued:

March 18, 2014

Decided:

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

August 4, 2014

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 2 of 85

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and
remanded by published opinion.
Judge Motz wrote the majority
opinion, in which Judge Diaz joined.
Judge Wilkinson wrote a
dissenting opinion.

ARGUED: Catha Worthman, LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON,
P.C., Oakland, California, for Appellant.
Adam Howard Charnes,
KILPATRICK
TOWNSEND
&
STOCKTON
LLP,
Winston-Salem,
North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Michael R. Hartman, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Thomas E.
Perez, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor.
ON
BRIEF: Jeffrey G. Lewis, LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER &
JACKSON, P.C., Oakland, California; Robert M. Elliot, Helen L.
Parsonage,
ELLIOT
MORGAN
PARSONAGE,
Winston-Salem,
North
Carolina; Kelly M. Dermody, Daniel M. Hutchinson, LIEFF CABRASER
HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, San Francisco, California, for
Appellant.
Daniel R. Taylor, Jr., Richard D. Dietz, Chad D.
Hansen, Thurston H. Webb, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Ronald Dean,
RONALD DEAN ALC, Pacific Palisades, California; Rebecca Hamburg
Cappy, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, San Francisco,
California; Mary Ellen Signorille, AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C.; Melvin Radowitz, AARP, Washington, D.C., for
Amici AARP and National Employment Lawyers Association.
Hollis
T. Hurd, THE BENEFITS DEPARTMENT, Bridgeville, Pennsylvania;
Kathryn Comerford Todd, Steven P. Lehotsky, Jane E. Holman,
NATIONAL CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, Washington, D.C.; Janet M.
Jacobson, AMERICAN BENEFITS COUNCIL, Washington, D.C., for Amici
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and American
Benefits Council.
M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor,
Timothy D. Hauser, Associate Solicitor for Plan Benefits
Security, Elizabeth Hopkins, Counsel for Appellate and Special
Litigation, Stephanie Lewis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, D.C., for Amicus Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of the
United States Department of Labor.

2

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 3 of 85

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco

Company

and

(collectively “RJR”).

R.J.

Reynolds

Tobacco

Holdings,

Inc.

Richard Tatum brought this suit on behalf

of himself and other participants in RJR’s 401(k) retirement
savings plan (collectively “the participants”).

He alleges that

RJR breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., when it
liquidated two funds held by the plan on an arbitrary timeline
without conducting a thorough investigation, thereby causing a
substantial loss to the plan.
After a bench trial, the district court found that RJR did
indeed breach its fiduciary duty of procedural prudence and so
bore the burden of proving that this breach did not cause loss
to the plan participants.
this

burden

by

But the court concluded that RJR met

establishing

that

“a

reasonable

and

prudent

fiduciary could have made [the same decision] after performing
[a proper] investigation.”

Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,

926 F. Supp. 2d 648, 651 (M.D.N.C. 2013) (emphasis added).

We

affirm

of

the

court’s

holdings

that

RJR

breached

its

duty

procedural prudence and therefore bore the burden of proof as to
causation.

But, because the court then failed to apply the

correct legal standard in assessing RJR’s liability, we must

3

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 4 of 85

reverse its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

I.
A.
In March 1999, fourteen years after the merger of Nabisco
and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco into RJR Nabisco, Inc., the merged
company decided to separate its food business, Nabisco, from its
tobacco business, R.J. Reynolds.

The company determined to do

this through a spin-off of the tobacco business.

The impetus

behind

of

the

spin-off

was

the

negative

impact

tobacco

litigation on Nabisco’s stock price, a phenomenon known as the
“tobacco taint.”

As the district court found, “[t]he purpose of

the spin-off was to ‘enhance shareholder value,’ which included
increasing the value of Nabisco by minimizing its exposure to
and association with tobacco litigation.”

Id. at 658-59.

Prior to the spin-off, RJR Nabisco sponsored a 401(k) plan,
which

offered

its

participants

the

option

to

invest

contributions in any combination of eight investment funds.
plan

offered

six

fully

diversified

funds

--

some

their
The

containing

investment contracts, fixed-income securities, and bonds; some
containing a broad range of domestic or international stocks;
and some containing a mix of stocks and bonds.
offered

two

company

stock

funds
4

--

the

Nabisco

The plan also
Common

Stock

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 5 of 85

Fund, which held common stock of Nabisco Holdings Corporation,
and the RJR Nabisco Common Stock Fund, which held stock in both
the food and tobacco businesses.

After the spin-off, the RJR

Nabisco Common Stock Fund was divided into two separate funds:
the

Nabisco

Group

Holdings

Common

Stock

Fund

(“Nabisco

Holdings”), which held the stock from the food business, and the
RJR Common Stock Fund, which held the stock from the tobacco
business. 1
The 401(k) plan at issue in this case (“the Plan”) was
created on June 14, 1999, the date of the spin-off, by amendment
to the existing RJR Nabisco plan.

The Plan expressly provided

for the retention of the Nabisco Funds as “frozen” funds in the
Plan.

Freezing

the

Nabisco

Funds

permitted

participants

to

maintain their existing investments in the Nabisco Funds, but
prevented

participants

from

purchasing

additional shares of those funds.

through

the

Plan

As the district court found,

“[t]here was no language in the [Plan] eliminating the Nabisco
Funds or limiting the duration in which the Plan would hold the
funds.”

Id. at 657-58.

The Plan also retained as investment

1

Thus, as a result of the spin-off, there were two funds
holding exclusively Nabisco stock: the Nabisco Common Stock
Fund, which existed prior to the spin-off, and the Nabisco Group
Holdings Common Stock Fund, which was created as a result of the
spin-off.
We refer to these two funds collectively as the
“Nabisco Funds.”
5

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 6 of 85

options the six diversified funds offered in the pre-spin-off
plan, as well as the RJR Common Stock Fund.
The Plan named as Plan fiduciaries two committees composed
of RJR officers and employees:
(“Benefits

Committee”),

administration,

and

the Employee Benefits Committee

responsible

the

for

Pension

general

Investment

Committee

(“Investment Committee”), responsible for Plan investments.
Plan

vested

the

Benefits

Committee

with

Plan

authority

to

The
make

further amendments to the Plan by a majority vote of its members
at

any

meeting

or

by

an

instrument

in

requirement

in

writing

signed

by

a

majority of its members.
Notwithstanding

the

the

governing

Plan

document that the Nabisco Funds remain as frozen funds in the
Plan,

RJR

determined

to

eliminate

them

from

the

Plan.

RJR

further determined to sell the Nabisco Funds approximately six
months after the spin-off.

These decisions were made at a March

1999 meeting by a “working group,” which consisted of various
corporate employees.

Id. at 656-57.

But, as the district court

found, the working group “had no authority or responsibility
under the then-existing Plan documents to implement any decision
regarding the pre-spin[-off] RJR Nabisco Holdings Plan, nor [was
it] later given authority to make or enforce decisions in the
[RJR] Plan documents.”

Id. at 655.

6

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 7 of 85

According to testimony from members of the working group,
the group spent only thirty to sixty minutes considering what to
do with the Nabisco Funds in RJR’s 401(k) plan.

The working

group “discussed reasons to remove the funds [from the plan] and
assumed that [RJR] did not want Nabisco stocks in its 401(k)
plan due to the high risk of having a single, non-employer stock
fund in the Plan.”

Id. at 656.

The members of the working

group also discussed “their [incorrect] belief that such funds
were only held in other [companies’] plans as frozen funds in
times of transition.”

Id.

Several members of the working group

“believed that a single stock fund in the plan would be an
‘added administrative complexity’ and incur additional costs.”
Id.

But

the

group

“did

not

discuss

specifically

what

the

complexities were or the amount of costs of keeping the fund in
the Plan, as balanced against any benefit to participants.”

Id.

The working group agreed that the Nabisco Funds should be frozen
at the time of the spin-off and eventually eliminated from the
Plan.

In terms of the timing of the divestment, a member of the

working group testified that “[t]here was a general discussion,
and

different

ideas

were

thrown

out,

would

three

months

be

appropriate, would a year be appropriate, and everybody got very
comfortable with six months.”

Id.

There was no testimony as to

why six months was determined to be an appropriate timeframe.

7

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

The
Robert

working
Gordon,

Filed: 08/04/2014

group’s
RJR’s

Pg: 8 of 85

recommendation

Executive

was

Vice

reported

President

back

for

to

Human

Resources and a member of both the Benefits Committee and the
Investment
members

of

Committee.
the

Gordon

Benefits

group’s recommendation.

testified

Committee

at

agreed

trial
with

that

the

the

working

But the district court found that aside

from this testimony, there was no evidence that the Benefits
Committee “met, discussed, or voted on the issue of eliminating
the Nabisco Funds or otherwise signed a required consent in lieu
of a meeting authorizing an amendment that would do so.”

Id. at

657. 2
In the months immediately following the June 1999 spin-off,
the

Nabisco

Funds

declined

reacted

sharply

to

pending

against

RJR,

precipitously

numerous
which

class

continued

in

action
to

value.

Markets

tobacco

lawsuits

impact

the

Nabisco stock as a result of the “tobacco taint.”
60.

value

of

Id. at 659-

Despite this decline in value, however, analyst reports

throughout

1999

and

2000

rated

Nabisco

stock

positively,

“overwhelmingly recommending [to] ‘hold’ or ‘buy,’ particularly
after the spin-off.”

Id. at 662.

2

In November 1999, Gordon drafted a purported amendment to
the Plan calling for the removal of Nabisco Funds from the Plan
as of February 1, 2000.
Because a majority of the Benefits
Committee members neither voted on nor signed this amendment,
the district court found it invalid. Id. at 674 n.19. No party
challenges this ruling on appeal.
8

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

In

Filed: 08/04/2014

early

October

Pg: 9 of 85

1999,

various

RJR

human

resources

managers, corporate executives, and in-house legal staff met to
discuss possible reconsideration of the decision made by the
working group in March to sell the Nabisco Funds.

Id. at 661.

They decided against changing course, however, largely because
they

feared

doing

so

would

expose

RJR

to

liability

from

employees who had already sold their shares of the Nabisco Funds
in reliance on RJR’s prior communications.
working

group

considered

that

this

Id. at 661-62. 3

perceived

liability

The
risk

could have been mitigated by temporarily unfreezing the Nabisco
Funds and allowing Plan participants to reinvest if desired.
But RJR was concerned that participants might view such action
as a recommendation to hold or reinvest in Nabisco Funds and
then blame RJR if the funds further declined.

Id. at 661.

Moreover, RJR was concerned that keeping Nabisco Funds in
the

Plan

would

investigate

them

require
on

a

the

fiduciaries

continuing

expense paid from the Plan’s trust.”
RJR

decided

against

hiring

“a

3

basis

“to
and

Id. at 662.

financial

monitor

at

and

significant

Nevertheless,

consultant,

outside

Apparently, no meeting attendee knew how many employees
had already sold their shares of the Nabisco Funds.
Following
the meeting, RJR ascertained that the number of participants in
each of the Nabisco Funds had decreased by approximately 15-16%
as of September 30, 1999.
Id. at 662.
Thus, at the time the
attendees considered whether to change course, the vast majority
of employees still retained their shares in the Nabisco Funds.
9

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 10 of 85

counsel, and/or independent fiduciary to assist” it in resolving
these questions and “deciding whether and when to eliminate the
Nabisco

Funds.”

believed

that

assistance.

Id.

the

Id.

Plan

Assertedly,

this

would

to

have

was

pay

so

the

because
cost

of

RJR
such

But, as the district court found, “[t]he issue

of monitoring the funds and how independent consultants were
paid was not discussed at length or investigated.”
Later

in

October

1999,

RJR

sent

a

Id.

letter

to

Plan

participants informing them that it would eliminate the Nabisco
Funds from the Plan as of January 31, 2000.

Id. at 663-64.

The

letter erroneously informed participants that the law did not
permit the Plan to maintain the Nabisco Funds.
the letter stated:
to

offer

Company

ongoing
stock,

eliminated.”
The

Specifically,

“Because regulations do not allow the Plan
investment

the

in

‘frozen’

individual

[Nabisco]

stocks

stock

other

funds

than

will

be

Id. at 664 (alteration in original).

human

resources

manager

who

drafted

the

letter

testified at trial that she did so at the direction of Gordon,
and that, at the time she prepared this letter, she knew the
statement was incorrect.

Id.

No lawyer reviewed the letter

before it was sent to participants.
found,

the

statement

“was

And, as the district court

never

corrected,

even

after

responsible RJR officials were informed that it was wrong.”

Id.

Rather,

the

a

second

letter,

sent

in

10

January

2000,

repeated

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

incorrect statement.

Pg: 11 of 85

“By that time,” the district court found,

“RJR’s managers, including its lawyers, had become aware that
the

statement

was

false,

but

nevertheless

communication to be sent to participants.”
On

January

27,

2000,

days

before

permitted

the

Id.
the

scheduled

sale,

plaintiff Richard Tatum sent an e-mail to both Gordon and Ann
Johnston, Vice President for Human Resources and a member of the
Benefits Committee and the Investment Committee.

In this e-

mail, Tatum asked that RJR not go through with the forced sale
of the Plan’s Nabisco shares because it would result in a 60%
loss to his 401(k) account.

Tatum indicated that he wanted to

wait to sell his Nabisco stock until its price rebounded, and he
noted

that

company

communications

had

been

“optimistic”

that

Nabisco stock would increase in value after the spin-off.

He

also

of

related

his

understanding

that

former

RJR

employees

Winston-Salem Health Care and Winston-Salem Dental Care still
retained frozen Nabisco and RJR funds in their 401(k) plans,
even though those companies had been acquired by a different
company, Novant, in 1996.
through evidence at trial.

(This claim was later substantiated
See id. at 667 n.15.)

In response

to Tatum’s concerns, Johnson replied that nothing could be done
to stop the divestment.

Id. at 667.

On January 31, 2000, RJR went through with the divestment
and sold the Nabisco shares held by employees in their 401(k)
11

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

accounts.
and

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 12 of 85

Between June 15, 1999 (the day after the spin-off)

January

31,

2000,

the

market

price

for

Nabisco

Holdings

stock had dropped by 60% to $8.62 per share, and the price for
Nabisco Common Stock had dropped by 28% to $30.18 per share.
Id. at 665.
RJR

invested

the

proceeds

from

the

sale

of

the

Nabisco

stock in the Plan’s “Interest Income Fund,” which consisted of
short-term investments, such as guaranteed investment contracts
and

government

bonds.

Id.

The

proceeds

remained

in

the

Interest Income Fund until a participant took action to reinvest
them in one of the other six funds offered in the Plan.
the

same

time

as

RJR

eliminated

Nabisco

stocks

Id.
from

At
the

employees’ 401(k) Plan, several RJR corporate officers opted to
retain their personal Nabisco stock or stock options.

Id. at

665-66.
A few months after the divestment, in the early spring of
2000, Nabisco stock began to rise in value.

On March 30, Carl

Icahn made his fourth attempt at a takeover of Nabisco in the
form of an unsolicited tender offer to purchase Nabisco Holdings
for $13 per share.

Id. at 666.

The district court noted that

“[b]efore his unsolicited offer, Icahn had made three previous
attempts to take over Nabisco, between November 1996 and the
spring of 1999, and was well known to have an interest in the
company.”

Id.

This tender offer provoked a bidding war, and,
12

Appeal: 13-1360

on

Doc: 94

December

Filed: 08/04/2014

11,

2000,

Pg: 13 of 85

Philip

Morris

acquired

Nabisco

Common

Stock at $55 per share and infused Nabisco Holdings with $11
billion

in

cash.

RJR

then

purchased

approximately $30 per share.
2000

divestment

prices,

Nabisco

Holdings

for

As compared to the January 31,

these

share

prices

represented

an

increase of 247% for Nabisco Holdings stock and 82% for Nabisco
Common Stock.

Id.
B.

In May 2002, Tatum filed this class action against RJR as
well as the Benefits Committee and the Investment Committee,
asserting that they acted as Plan fiduciaries.
that

these

Plan

fiduciaries

breached

their

Tatum alleged

fiduciary

duties

under ERISA by eliminating Nabisco stock from the Plan on an
arbitrary timeline without conducting a thorough investigation.
He

further

claimed

that

their

fiduciary

breach

caused

substantial loss to the Plan because it forced the sale of the
Plan’s Nabisco Funds at their all-time low, despite the strong
likelihood that Nabisco’s stock prices would rebound.
In

2003,

the

district

court

granted

RJR’s

motion

to

dismiss, concluding that Tatum’s allegations involved “settlor”
rather than “fiduciary” actions, meaning that the decision to
eliminate the Nabisco Funds from the Plan was non-discretionary.
We reversed, holding that the Plan documents did not mandate
divestment of the Nabisco Funds, and thus did not preclude Tatum
13

Appeal: 13-1360

from

Doc: 94

stating

Filed: 08/04/2014

a

fiduciary duty.

claim

Pg: 14 of 85

against

the

defendants

for

breach

of

Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 392 F.3d

636, 637 (4th Cir. 2004).
On

remand,

the

district

court

granted

RJR’s

motion

to

dismiss the Benefits Committee and the Investment Committee as
defendants.

After the limitations period had expired, Tatum

filed a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint to add the
individual
denied. 4

committee

members

as

defendants,

which

the

court

The court then held a bench trial from January 13 to

February 9, 2010 to determine whether RJR breached its fiduciary
duties in eliminating the Nabisco Funds from the Plan.
On February 25, 2013, the court issued its final judgment,
containing detailed and extensive factual findings.

The court

recognized (as we had held) that RJR’s decision to remove the
Nabisco Funds from the Plan was a fiduciary act subject to the
duty of prudence imposed by ERISA.
673.

Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at

The court then held that (1) RJR breached its fiduciary

duties when it “decided to remove and sell Nabisco stock from
the Plan without undertaking a proper investigation into the
prudence

of

doing

so,”

id.

at

4

651,

and

(2)

as

a

breaching

Shortly thereafter, the district court certified a class
of Plan participants and beneficiaries whose investments in the
Nabisco Funds were sold by RJR in connection with the spin-off.
See Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 254 F.R.D. 59, 62
(M.D.N.C. 2008).
On appeal, RJR raises no challenge to this
certification.
14

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 15 of 85

fiduciary, RJR bore the burden of proving that its breach did
not cause the alleged losses to the Plan.

But the court further

held that (3) RJR met its burden of proof because its decision
to eliminate the Nabisco Funds was “one which a reasonable and
prudent

fiduciary

investigation.”

could

have

made

after

performing

such

an

interests

of

Id. (emphasis added).

Tatum noted a timely appeal.

II.
Congress

enacted

participants

in

ERISA

to

employee

beneficiaries . . . by

benefit

establishing

responsibility,

and

obligation

benefit

and

by

plans,

protect

for

providing

“the
plans

standards
fiduciaries
for

and
of
of

appropriate

sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts.”
§ 1001(b).
standards

their
conduct,
employee

remedies,
29 U.S.C.

Consistent with this purpose, ERISA imposes high
of

fiduciary

duty

on

those

responsible

for

the

administration of employee benefit plans and the investment and
disposal of plan assets.

As the Second Circuit has explained,

“[t]he fiduciary obligations of the trustees to the participants
and beneficiaries of [an ERISA] plan are . . . the highest known
to the law.”

Donovan v. Bierwirth, 680 F.2d 263, 272 n.8 (2d

Cir. 1982).

15

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 16 of 85

Pursuant to the duty of loyalty, an ERISA fiduciary must
“discharge

his

duties . . . solely

participants and beneficiaries.”

in

the

interest

of

29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1).

the
The

duty of prudence requires ERISA fiduciaries to act “with the
care,

skill,

prudence,

and

diligence

under

the

circumstances

then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and
familiar

with

enterprise

such

of

matters

a

like

Id. § 1104(a)(1)(B).

would

use

character

in

the
with

and

conduct
like

of

an

aims.”

The statute also requires fiduciaries to

act “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing
the

plan

insofar

as

such

consistent with [ERISA].”

documents

and

instruments

Id. § 1104(a)(1)(D).

are

And fiduciaries

have a duty to “diversify[] investments of the plan so as to
minimize

the

circumstances

risk
it

§ 1104(a)(1)(C).

of

is

large

clearly

However,

losses,

prudent

legislative

unless

not

to

history

under
do

so.”

and

the
Id.

federal

regulations clarify that the diversification and prudence duties
do

not

prohibit

a

plan

trustee

from

holding

single-stock

investments as an option in a plan that includes a portfolio of
diversified funds. 5

Moreover, the diversification duty does not

5

See H.R. Rep. No. 93-1280 (1974) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted
at 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5038, 5085-86 (clarifying that, in plans in
which the participant exercises individual control over the
assets in his individual account -- like the plan at issue here
-- “if the participant instructs the plan trustee to invest the
(Continued)
16

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 17 of 85

apply to investments that fall within the exemption for employer
stocks provided for in § 1104(a)(2).
A fiduciary who breaches the duties imposed by ERISA is
“personally liable” for “any losses to the plan resulting from
[the]

breach.”

Id.

§ 1109(a).

Section

1109(a),

ERISA’s

fiduciary liability provision, provides in full:
Any person who is a fiduciary with respect to a plan
who breaches any of the responsibilities, obligations,
or duties imposed upon fiduciaries by this subchapter
shall be personally liable to make good to such plan
any losses to the plan resulting from each such
breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of
such fiduciary which have been made through use of
assets of the plan by the fiduciary, and shall be
subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as
the court may deem appropriate, including removal of
such fiduciary.
Id.

ERISA thus provides for both monetary and equitable relief,

and

does

not

(as

liability

for

breach

the
of

dissent
the

claims)

duty

of

limit
prudence

a

fiduciary’s
to

equitable

relief.
In determining whether fiduciaries have breached their duty
of prudence, we ask “whether the individual trustees, at the
time they engaged in the challenged transactions, employed the
appropriate methods to investigate the merits of the investment

full balance of his account in, e.g., a single stock, the
trustee is not to be liable for any loss because of a failure to
diversify or because the investment does not meet the prudent
man standards” so long as the investment does not “contradict
the terms of the plan”); see also 29 C.F.R. § 2550.404c–1(f)(5).
17

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 18 of 85

and to structure the investment.”

DiFelice v. U.S. Airways,

Inc.,

2007).

497

F.3d

410,

420

(4th

Cir.

Our

focus

is

on

“whether the fiduciary engaged in a reasoned decision[-]making
process, consistent with that of a ‘prudent man acting in [a]
like capacity.’”

Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B)).

When the fiduciary’s conduct fails to meet this standard,
and the plaintiff has made a prima facie case of loss, we next
inquire
loss.

whether
For

the

fiduciary’s

“[e]ven

if

a

imprudent

trustee

conduct

failed

caused
conduct

to

the
an

investigation before making a decision,” and a loss occurred,
the trustee “is insulated from liability . . . if a hypothetical
prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision anyway.”
Plasterers’ Local Union No. 96 Pension Plan v. Pepper, 663 F.3d
210, 218 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Roth v. Sawyer-Cleator Lumber
Co., 16 F.3d 915, 919 (8th Cir. 1994)).
ERISA’s fiduciary duties “draw much of their content from
the common law of trusts, the law that governed most benefit
plans

before

ERISA’s

enactment.”

DiFelice,

497

F.3d

at

(quoting Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 496 (1996)).
in

interpreting

ERISA,

court’s analysis.
story,”

however,

protections

partly

Id.

the

common

law

of

trusts

417

Thus,

informs

a

“[T]rust law does not tell the entire

because
reflect

“ERISA’s
a

standards

congressional

and

procedural

determination

that

the common law of trusts did not offer completely satisfactory
18

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

protection.”

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 19 of 85

Varity Corp., 516 U.S. at 497.

Therefore, courts

must be mindful that, in “develop[ing] a federal common law of
rights and obligations under ERISA,” Congress “expect[s] that”
courts “will interpret th[e] prudent man rule (and the other
fiduciary duties) bearing in mind the special nature and purpose
of

employee

benefit

plans.”

Id.

(internal

citations

and

quotation marks omitted).
On appeal, Tatum argues that, although the district court
correctly determined that RJR breached its duty of procedural
prudence and so bore the burden of proving that its breach did
not cause the Plan’s loss, the court applied the wrong standard
for determining
incorrectly

loss

causation.

considered

whether

He
a

contends

reasonable

that

the

court

fiduciary,

after

conducting a proper investigation, could have sold the Nabisco
Funds at the same time and in the same manner, as opposed to
whether a reasonable fiduciary would have done so.
In response, RJR contends that the district court applied
the appropriate causation standard.
urges

us

breached
breaching

to
its

reverse
duty

fiduciary,

the

of
it

district

procedural
bore

the

In the alternative, RJR
court’s
prudence

burden

of

holdings
and

that

that,

proving

as

that

it
a
its

breach did not cause the Plan’s loss.
“We review a judgment resulting from a bench trial under a
mixed standard of review -- factual findings may be reversed
19

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 20 of 85

only if clearly erroneous, while conclusions of law are examined
de

novo.”

Plasterers’,

663

F.3d

at

215

(internal

quotation

marks omitted).

III.
We first consider the district court’s finding that RJR
breached its duty of procedural prudence. 6
A.
ERISA requires fiduciaries to employ “appropriate methods
to investigate the merits of the investment and to structure the
investment” as well as to “engage[] in a reasoned decision[]making process, consistent with that of a ‘prudent man acting
in [a] like capacity.’”

DiFelice, 497 F.3d at 420.

6

The duty of

We can quickly dispose of RJR’s claim that it was not a
fiduciary subject to ERISA’s duty of prudence. RJR argues that
the Plan fiduciaries, the Benefits Committee and the Investment
Committee, exercised “exclusive fiduciary authority” over the
management and administration of the Plan and that RJR qua
employer is thus not liable as a Plan fiduciary. Appellee’s Br.
49.
ERISA, however, does not limit fiduciary status to the
fiduciaries named in a plan document.
Instead, ERISA provides
that a person or entity is a “functional fiduciary” to the
extent that he, she, or it “exercises any discretionary
authority or discretionary control respecting management . . .
or disposition of [the plan’s] assets.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A)
(emphasis added). Recognizing this standard, the district court
held that RJR “made and implemented the elimination decision
before any official committee action was ever attempted and
failed to use the committees designated in the Plan . . . for
any of the discretionary decisions.” Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at
672 n.18.
Thus, we think it clear that RJR exercised actual
control over the management and disposition of Plan assets, and
so acted as a functional fiduciary.
20

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 21 of 85

prudence also requires fiduciaries to monitor the prudence of
their investment decisions to ensure that they remain in the
best interest of plan participants.
“The

evaluation

is

not

a

Id. at 423.

general

one,

but

rather

must

‘depend on the character and aim of the particular plan and
decision
time.’”

at

issue

and

the

circumstances

prevailing

at

the

Id. at 420 (alteration omitted) (quoting Bussian v. RJR

Nabisco, Inc., 223 F.3d 286, 299 (5th Cir. 2000)).

Of course, a

prudent fiduciary need not follow a uniform checklist.

Courts

have found that a variety of actions can support a finding that
a

fiduciary

acted

with

example, appointing
legal

and

financial

an

procedural

independent
expertise,

prudence,
fiduciary,

holding

including,
seeking

meetings

to

for

outside
ensure

fiduciary oversight of the investment decision, and continuing
to

monitor

and

performance.

receive

regular

updates

on

the

investment’s

See, e.g., id. at 420-21; Bunch v. W.R. Grace &

Co., 555 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2009); Laborers Nat’l Pension
Fund v. N. Trust Quantitative Advisors, Inc., 173 F.3d 313, 322
(5th

Cir.

procedural

1999). 7
prudence

In

other

requires

words,

more

7

than

although

the

“a

heart

pure

duty

of

and

an

By contrast, courts have found that a fiduciary’s failure
to act in accordance with plan documents serves as evidence of
imprudent conduct -- in addition to independently violating
Subsection (D) of § 1104(a)(1) –- so long as the plan documents
are consistent with ERISA’s requirements. See, e.g., Dardaganis
v. Grace Capital, Inc., 889 F.2d 1237, 1241 (2d Cir. 1989).
21

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 22 of 85

empty head,” DiFelice, 497 F.3d at 418 (internal quotation marks
and

citation

fiduciaries

omitted),
who

act

courts

have

reasonably

–-

readily
i.e.,

determined

who

that

appropriately

investigate the merits of an investment decision prior to acting
-- easily clear this bar.
B.
The district court carefully examined the relevant facts
and made extensive factual findings to support its conclusion
that RJR failed to engage in a prudent decision-making process.
The court found that “the working group’s decision in March
1999 was made with virtually no discussion or analysis and was
almost entirely based upon the assumptions of those present and
not on research or investigation.”
678.

Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at

Indeed, the court found that the group’s discussion of the

Nabisco

stocks

lasted

no

longer

than

an

hour

and

focused

exclusively on removing the funds from the Plan.
The

court

further

found

“no

evidence

that

the

[working

group] ever considered an alternative [to divestment within six
months],

such

as

maintaining

the

stock

in

a

frozen

fund

indefinitely, making the timeline for divestment longer, or any
other

strategy

to

minimize

a

potential

immediate

participants or any potential opportunity for gain.”

loss

to

Id. at

680.

Instead, the “driving consideration” was the “general risk

of

single

a

stock

fund,”

as

well
22

as

“the

emphasis

on

the

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 23 of 85

unconfirmed assumption that RJR would no longer be exempt from
the ERISA diversification requirement because the funds would no
longer be employer stocks.”

Id. at 678.

Yet the evidence

adduced at trial showed that “no one researched the accuracy of
that assumption, and it was later determined that nothing in the
law or regulations required that the Nabisco Funds be removed
from the Plan.”

Id. at 680.

The district court found that “the six month timeline for
the divestment was chosen arbitrarily and with no research.”
Id. at 679.

The working group failed to consider “[t]he idea

that, perhaps, it would take a while for the tobacco taint to
dissipate” or “the fact that determining for employees exactly
when

the

stocks

would

be

removed

could

result

in

large

and

unnecessary losses to the Plan through the individual accounts
of employees.”

Id.

Similarly, there was no consideration of

“the purpose of the Plan, which was for long term retirement
savings,” or “the purpose of the spin-off, which was, in large
part, to allow the Nabisco stock a chance to recover from the
tobacco taint and hopefully rise in value.”

Id. at 678.

The

court found the failure to consider these issues particularly
notable

“[g]iven

that

the

strategy

behind

the

spin-off

was

largely to rid Nabisco stock prices of the ‘tobacco taint.’”
Id. at 680.

23

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 24 of 85

The court also found that the only time following the spinoff

that

RJR

“actually

discussed

the

merits

decision was at the October 8, 1999 meeting.”

of

that

meeting,

“participants
given

the

Gordon
were

Nabisco

raised

the

questioning
stocks’

concern

the

continued

[March]

Id. at 681.

from

timing

the

of

decline

RJR’s
the
in

CEO

In
that

elimination

value.”

Id.

Although RJR engaged in this additional discussion, it undertook
no

investigation

into

the

assumptions

decision to sell the Plan’s Nabisco stock.

underlying

its

March

Id. at 682.

Rather, those involved in the October discussion expressed
“their
stock

view
at

a

that

the

loss

employees

were

a

who

problem,”

cashed
and

[these] early sellers might sue RJR.”
quotation marks and alterations omitted).

out

there

their

was

Nabisco

“fear

that

Id. at 681 (internal
The court found that

the discussion “focused around the liability of RJR, rather than
what might be in the best interest of the participants.”

Id. at

682 (emphasis in original).

As a result, RJR failed to explore

the

Plan

option

of

amending

the

to

temporarily

unfreeze

the

Nabisco Funds and give “the early sellers the opportunity to
repurchase the stock.”

Id.

Nor did RJR consider any “other

alternatives for remedying the problem.”

Id.

The court noted

that, despite fearing liability, RJR “still did not engage an
independent analyst or outside counsel to analyze the problem.”
Id. at 681-82.
24

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 25 of 85

The court found no evidence of any other discussions in
which RJR ever “contemplated any formal action other than what
had already been decided at the March meeting.”

Id. at 680.

Instead, the evidence showed that RJR’s focus after the spin-off
“was on setting a specific date for divestment and on providing
notice

to

funds.”

participants

regarding

Id. at 680-81.

against

reexamining

the

planned

removal

of

the

“Indicative of the pervading mindset
the

original

decision

were

the

communications known to be false when sent to participants” by
RJR with the October 1999 and January 2000 401(k) statements.
Id. at 681.
In

sum,

the

district

court

found

that

“there

[wa]s

no

evidence -- in the form of documentation or testimony -- of any
process

by

which

fiduciaries

investigated,

analyzed,

or

considered the circumstances regarding the Nabisco stocks and
whether it was appropriate to divest.”

Id. at 679.

The court

explained that, in light of the fiduciary duty to act “solely in
the interest of participants and beneficiaries,” it was clearly
improper for the fiduciaries “to consider their own potential
liability as part of the reason for not changing course on their
decision to divest the Plan of Nabisco stocks.”
(emphasis
“[t]he

in

lack

original).
of

effort

The
on

district

the

part

of

court
those

Id. at 681

concluded
considering

that
the

removal of the Nabisco Funds –- from March 1999 until the stock
25

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 26 of 85

was removed from the plan on January 31, 2000 –- compel[led] a
finding

that

the

RJR

decision-makers

in

this

case

failed

to

exercise prudence in coming to their decision to eliminate the
Nabisco Funds from the Plan.”

Id. at 682.
C.

Despite these extensive factual findings, RJR contends that
it did not breach its duty of procedural prudence and that the
district court too rigorously scrutinized its procedural process
in so holding.

We cannot agree.

As a threshold matter, RJR provides no basis for this court
to question the district court’s well-supported factual finding
that RJR failed to present evidence of “any process by which
fiduciaries

investigated,

analyzed,

or

considered

the

circumstances regarding the Nabisco stocks and whether it was
appropriate

to

divest.”

conducting

no

investigation,

circumstances
procedural

surrounding

imprudence

no

Id.

at

679

(emphasis

analysis,

the

or

divestment,

matter

what

added).

review
RJR

of

acted

level

of

scrutiny

failure

to

conduct

By
the
with
is

applied to its actions.
Instead

of

grappling

with

its

any

investigation, RJR urges us to hold that it did not breach its
duty of procedural prudence because certain types of investment
decisions
prudence.

assertedly

trigger

a

lesser

standard

of

procedural

Thus, RJR contends that “[n]on-employer, single stock
26

Appeal: 13-1360

funds

Doc: 94

are

Filed: 08/04/2014

imprudent

Appellee’s Br. 35. 8

per

Pg: 27 of 85

se” due

to

their

inherent

risk.

But this per se approach is directly at odds

with our case law and federal regulations interpreting ERISA’s
duty of prudence.

See DiFelice, 497 F.3d at 420 (explaining

that, in all cases, evaluating the prudence of an investment
decision requires a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry that
takes into account “the character and aim of the particular plan
and decision at issue and the circumstances prevailing at the
time”

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted));

29

C.F.R.

§ 2550.404a-1(b)(1) (stressing the importance of a totality-ofthe-circumstances
regulations,

inquiry).

the

Department

Indeed,
of

Labor

in

promulgating

expressly

its

rejected

the

suggestion that a particular investment can be deemed per se
prudent or per se imprudent based on its level of risk.

See

Investment of Plan Assets under the “Prudence” Rule, 44 Fed.
Reg. 37,221, 37,225 (June 26, 1979); see also id. at 37,224-25
(declining

to

investment,

create

or

“any

investment

list

of

investments,

techniques”

deemed

classes

of

permissible

or

impermissible under the prudence rule).
Nor

is

there

decision

to

sell

any
the

merit

to

employees’

8

RJR’s
Nabisco

contention
shares

that

merits

its
less

We note that at the time plan participants purchased
shares of the Nabisco Funds through the Plan, they were indeed
employer funds.
27

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 28 of 85

scrutiny because that decision was assertedly made “in the face
of financial trouble” to “protect[] participants and advance[] a
fiduciary’s

duty

to

‘minimize

the

risk

Appellee’s Br. 34 (citation omitted).

of

large

losses.’”

To adopt this argument,

we would have to ignore the findings of the district court as to
the actual context in which RJR acted.
The

court

investigation,

found

RJR

forced
in

the

sale,
Plan

undertaking

within

an

arbitrary

invested.

The court found that RJR adhered to that decision in

the

of

declining

participants

any

of

sharply

which

without

timeframe,

face

funds

that,

share

prices

had

and

already

despite

contemporaneous analyst reports projecting the future growth of
those

share

prices

and

“overwhelmingly”

recommending

investors “buy” or at least “hold” Nabisco stocks.
also

found

that

RJR

did

so

without

consulting

that

The court

any

experts,

without considering that the Plan’s purpose was to provide for
retirement savings, and without acknowledging that the spin-off
was undertaken in large part to enhance the future value of the
Nabisco stock by eliminating the tobacco taint.
The district court further found that RJR sold the Nabisco
funds when it did because of its fear of liability, not out of
concern

for

its

employees’

best

interests.

RJR

blinks

at

reality in maintaining that its actions served to “protect[]
participants” or to “minimize the risk of large losses.”
28

To the

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 29 of 85

contrary, RJR’s decision to force the sale of its employees’
shares

of

Nabisco

stock,

within

an

arbitrary

timeframe

and

irrespective of the prevailing circumstances, ensured immediate
and permanent losses to the Plan and its beneficiaries.
In sum, in support of its holding that RJR breached its
duty of procedural prudence, the district court made extensive
and careful factual findings, all of which were well supported
by

the

record

evidence.

RJR’s

challenge

to

those

findings

fails.

IV.
We next address the district court’s holding with respect
to which party bears the burden of proof as to loss causation.
A breach of fiduciary duty “does not automatically equate to
causation of loss and therefore liability.”
F.3d at 217.

Plasterers’, 663

ERISA provides that a fiduciary who breaches its

duties “shall be personally liable” for “any losses to the plan
resulting

from

§ 1109(a)).

each

such

breach.”

Id.

(quoting

29

U.S.C.

Accordingly, in Plasterers’, we adopted the Seventh

Circuit’s reasoning that “[i]f trustees act imprudently, but not
dishonestly, they should not have to pay a monetary penalty for
their imprudent judgment so long as it does not result in a loss
to the Fund.”

Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Brock v. Robbins,

830 F.2d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 1987)).
29

We cautioned, however, that

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 30 of 85

“imprudent conduct will usually result in a loss to the fund, a
loss for which [the fiduciary] will be monetarily penalized.”
Id. at 218 (quoting Brock, 830 F.3d at 647).

But in Plasterers’

we did not need to answer the question of which party bore the
burden of proof on loss causation.
In

this

question.

case,

the

district

court

had

to

resolve

that

The court held that the burden of both production and

persuasion rested on RJR at this stage of the proceedings.

The

court explained that “once Tatum made a showing that there was a
breach of fiduciary duty and some sort of loss to the plan, RJR
assumed

the

persuasion)

burden (that
to

show

that

is,
the

the

burden

decision

to

of

remove

stock from the plan was objectively prudent.”
Supp. 2d at 683. 9
erred.

production
the

and

Nabisco

Tatum, 926 F.

RJR contends that in doing so, the court

We disagree.

Generally, of course, when a statute is silent, the default
rule provides that the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff.
Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56 (2005).

But

“[t]he ordinary default rule . . . admits of exceptions,” id. at
57,

and

one

such

exception

arises

9

under

the

common

law

of

Thus, contrary to RJR’s passing comment on appeal, see
Appellee’s Br. 22 n.4, the district court did find that Tatum
made a prima facie showing of loss. Moreover, no party disputes
that, on January 31, 2000, when RJR sold all of the Plan’s
Nabisco stock, that stock’s value was at an all-time low.
30

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

trusts.

Filed: 08/04/2014

“[I]n

matters

of

Pg: 31 of 85

causation,

when

a

beneficiary

has

succeeded in proving that the trustee has committed a breach of
trust and that a related loss has occurred, the burden shifts to
the trustee to prove that the loss would have occurred in the
absence of the breach.”

Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 100,

cmt. f (2012) (internal citation omitted); see also Bogert &
Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 871 (2d rev. ed. 1995 &
Supp. 2013) (“If the beneficiary makes a prima facie case, the
burden of contradicting it . . . will shift to the trustee.”).
The district court adopted this well-established approach.
It reasoned that requiring the defendant-fiduciary, here RJR, to
bear

the

burden

“considering

that

of
a

proof

was

causation

finding of [fiduciary] breach.”

the

“most

fair”

analysis would only

approach
follow

a

Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at 684;

see also Roth, 16 F.3d at 917 (stating that once the ERISA
plaintiff meets this burden, “the burden of persuasion shifts to
the fiduciary to prove that the loss was not caused by . . . the
breach of duty.”

(alteration in original) (internal quotation

marks omitted)); McDonald v. Provident Indem. Life Ins. Co., 60
F.3d 234, 237 (5th Cir. 1995); cf. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Labor
v. Gilley, 290 F.3d 827, 830 (6th Cir. 2002) (placing the burden
of proof on the defendant-fiduciary to disprove damages); N.Y.

31

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 32 of 85

State Teamsters Council v. Estate of DePerno, 18 F.3d 179, 18283 (2d Cir. 1994) (same). 10
We have previously recognized the burden-shifting framework
in an analogous context.

In Brink v. DaLesio, 667 F.2d 420 (4th

Cir. 1982), modified and superseded on denial of reh’g, (1982),
we considered the impact of a breach of fiduciary duty under the

10

None of the cases RJR and the dissent cite to support
their contrary view persuade us that the district court erred.
See Silverman v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 138 F.3d 98, 105
(2d Cir. 1998); Kuper v. Iovenko, 66 F.3d 1447, 1459 (6th Cir.
1995), abrogated by Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12–
751, 573 U.S. -- (2014); Willett v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Ala., 953 F.2d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 1992).
Neither Kuper nor
Willett addressed a situation in which plaintiffs had already
established both fiduciary breach and a loss.
Moreover, in
Silverman, the decision not to shift the burden of proof was
based in large part on the unique nature of a co-fiduciary’s
liability under § 1105(a)(3). See 138 F.3d at 106 (Jacobs, J.,
concurring). That reasoning does not apply to the present case,
in which plan participants sued under § 1104(a)(1) and alleged
losses
directly
linked
to
the
defendant-fiduciary’s
own
fiduciary breach.
Nor does it appear that the Second Circuit
would apply the Silverman reasoning to a case brought under
§ 1104(a).
See N.Y. State Teamsters Council, 18 F.3d at 182,
182-83 (acknowledging “the general rule that a plaintiff bears
the burden of proving the fact of damages” but concluding in an
ERISA case that “once the beneficiaries have established their
prima facie case by demonstrating the trustees’ breach of
fiduciary duty, the burden of explanation or justification
shifts to the fiduciaries” (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted)).
Furthermore, Willett, which the dissent
quotes at length, actually undercuts its position.
There the
court held that the burden of proof remained with the plaintiff,
prior to establishing breach, but that “in order to prevail as a
matter of law,” it was the defendant-fiduciary who had to
“establish the absence of causation by proving that the
beneficiaries’ claimed losses could not have resulted from
[defendant-fiduciary’s] failure to cure [the co-fiduciary’s]
breach.” 953 F.2d at 1343 (emphasis added).
32

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 33 of 85

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 501.
We explained that “[i]t is generally recognized that one who
acts in violation of his fiduciary duty bears the burden of
showing

that

he

acted

fairly

and

reasonably.”

Id.

at

426.

Thus, we held that the district court in that case had erred
when, after finding that the defendant breached his fiduciary
duty, it placed the burden on the plaintiffs to prove what, if
any, damages were attributable to that breach.

Id. 11

Moreover, this burden-shifting framework comports with the
structure and purpose of ERISA.

As stated in its preamble, the

statute’s

to

primary

objective

is

protect

“the

interests

of

participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries.”
29 U.S.C. § 1001(b).
fiduciary

obligations

To achieve this purpose, ERISA imposes
on

those

11

responsible

for

administering

RJR and the dissent suggest that our holding in U.S. Life
Insurance Co. v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank, 685 F.2d 887 (4th
Cir. 1982), supports their view that RJR did not bear the burden
of proof. They contend that in U.S. Life, we held that “placing
the burden of proof on a plaintiff [here Tatum] to prove
causation is supported by trust law.” Appellee’s Br. 21. But,
in fact, in U.S. Life, we dealt with the unique situation in
which a trustee breached the terms of an indenture agreement and
so assertedly violated state contract law.
685 F.2d at 889.
Because the parties’ relationship was principally contractual in
nature (a critical fact that both RJR and the dissent ignore),
we declined to apply a burden-shifting framework in what we held
was, in essence, a
“typical breach of contract type of case.”
Id. at 896.
Here, by contrast, ERISA –- not a contract –governs
the
parties’
relationship,
and
expressly
imposes
fiduciary -- not contractual -- duties. Thus, U.S. Life offers
no support to RJR and the dissent.
33

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

employee

Filed: 08/04/2014

benefit

plans

and

Pg: 34 of 85

plan

assets,

and

provides

for

enforcement through “appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready
access to the Federal courts.”

Id.

As amicus Secretary of

Labor notes, “[i]mposing on plaintiffs who have established a
fiduciary breach and a prima facie case of loss the burden of
showing that the loss would not have occurred in the absence of
a breach would create significant barriers for those (including
the Secretary) who seek relief for fiduciary breaches.”
Br. of Sec’y of Labor 19-20.

Amicus

Such an approach would “provide an

unfair advantage to a defendant who has already been shown to
have

engaged

in

wrongful

conduct,

provisions’ deterrent effect.”

minimizing

the

fiduciary

Id. at 20.

In sum, the long-recognized trust law principle -- that
once a fiduciary is shown to have breached his fiduciary duty
and a loss is established, he bears the burden of proof on loss
causation -- applies here.

Overwhelming evidence supported the

district court’s finding that RJR breached its fiduciary duty to
act prudently and that this breach resulted in a prima facie
showing of loss to the Plan.

Thus, the court did not err in

requiring RJR to prove that its imprudent decision-making did
not cause the Plan’s loss.

Accordingly, we turn to the question

of whether the district court correctly held that RJR carried
its burden of proof on causation.

34

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 35 of 85

V.
To carry its burden, RJR had to prove that despite its
imprudent

decision-making

process,

decision was “objectively prudent.”

its

ultimate

investment

Because the term “objective

prudence” is not self-defining, in Plasterers’, we turned to the
standard set forth by our sister circuits.
that

a

decision

is

“objectively

prudent”

Thus, we explained
if

“a

hypothetical

prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision anyway.”
663 F.3d at 218 (quoting Roth, 16 F.3d at 919) (emphasis added);
see also Peabody v. Davis, 636 F.3d 368, 375 (7th Cir. 2011);
Bussian, 223 F.3d at 300; In re Unisys Sav. Plan Litig., 173
F.3d

145,

plaintiff

153-54
who

has

(3d

Cir.

proved

1999).

the

Under

this

standard,

defendant-fiduciary’s

a

procedural

imprudence and a prima facie loss prevails unless the defendantfiduciary can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a
prudent
another

fiduciary
way,

a

would

have

made

plan

fiduciary

the

same

carries

decision.
its

burden

Put
by

demonstrating that it would have reached the same decision had
it undertaken a proper investigation.
Somewhat surprisingly, the dissent accuses us of concocting
a new standard for loss causation, never adopted in Plasterers’.
We cannot agree.

We are simply applying the standard set forth

by this court in Plasterers’, a case on which the dissent itself
heavily relies.

The dissent’s claim that Plasterers’ decided
35

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 36 of 85

nothing more than that “causation of loss is not an axiomatic
conclusion

that

Plasterers’,

flows

from

immediately

a

breach”

after

is

recognizing

baseless.
that

the

For

in

district

court had been “without the benefit of specific circuit guidance
on

this

issue,”

causation means.

663

F.3d

at

218

n.9,

we

Thus, we then explained:

stated

what

loss

“Even if a trustee

failed to conduct an investigation before making a decision, he
is insulated from liability [under § 1109(a)] if a hypothetical
prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision anyway.”
Id. at 218 (quoting Roth, 16 F.3d at 919).

This language would

serve no purpose in the opinion if not to instruct the district
court regarding the proper analysis on remand. 12

12

Moreover, the dissent is simply mistaken in contending
that the standard applicable for loss causation “was not
discussed, was not briefed, and was not before the court” in
Plasterers’.
In urging the court to adopt the loss causation
requirement, the appellants’ brief in Plasterers’ cited the
language from then-Judge Scalia’s concurrence in Fink v. Nat’l
Sav. & Trust Co., 772 F.2d 951, 962 (D.C. Cir. 1985), see infra
at 40, and then recognized that:
The Eighth Circuit’s formulation of the rule [of loss
causation in Roth] is more common, if less colorful:
“Even if a trustee failed to conduct an investigation
before making a decision, he is insulated from
liability if a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would
have made the same decision anyway.”
This rule
follows directly from § 409 of ERISA, which provides
that fiduciaries are liable only for “losses to the
plan resulting from . . . a breach.”
Br. of Appellants 21-22, Plasterers’, 663 F.3d 210 (emphasis
added) (citations omitted).
Thus, both the loss causation
requirement and the standard used to define it were indeed
discussed, briefed, and before the court in Plasterers’.
36

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 37 of 85

The district court properly acknowledged the “would have”
standard that we and our sister circuits have adopted.
Tatum,

926

F.

Supp.

2d

at

683.

applied a different standard.

But

the

court

See

nonetheless

Thus, it required RJR to prove

only that “a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could have decided
to eliminate the Nabisco Funds on January 31, 2000.”
(emphasis

added).

evaluated

the

The

manner

evidence

in

which

unquestionably

the

Id. at 690

district

demonstrates

indeed meant “could have” rather than “would have.”
id. at 689 n.29, 690.

court

that

it

See, e.g.,

For instead of determining whether the

evidence established that a prudent fiduciary, more likely than
not, would have divested the Nabisco Funds at the time and in
the

manner

evidence

in

did

which

not

RJR

“compel

did,
a

the

decision

court
to

concluded
maintain

that

the

the

Nabisco

Funds in the Plan,” and that a prudent investor “could [have]
infer[red]” that it was prudent to sell.

Id. at 686 (emphasis

added). 13

13

For this analysis, the court relied on Kuper v. Quantum
Chemicals Corp., 852 F. Supp. 1389, 1395 (S.D. Ohio 1994), aff’d
sub nom. Kuper v. Iovenko, 66 F.3d at 1447.
But Kuper is
inapposite because it applied a presumption of reasonableness to
a fiduciary’s decision to retain company stock, a presumption
that plaintiffs failed to rebut by establishing breach of
fiduciary duty.
See 66 F.3d at 1459.
We have never applied
this presumption, and the Supreme Court has recently clarified
that ERISA contains no such presumption. See Dudenhoeffer, No.
12–751, 573 U.S.--, at 1.
Moreover, this case differs from
Kuper in two critical respects.
First, Tatum challenges the
(Continued)
37

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 38 of 85

RJR recognizes that the district court applied a “could
have” standard, but argues that this is the proper standard for
determining
prudent.

whether

its

divestment

Alternatively,

RJR

decision

maintains

was

that,

objectively

even

if

the

district court erred in applying the “could have” rather than
“would have” standard, the error was harmless.

We address these

arguments in turn.
A.
RJR

acknowledges

that

the

finding of objective prudence.

causation

inquiry

requires

a

But it contends that a court

measures a fiduciary’s objective prudence by determining whether
its “decision, when viewed objectively, is one a hypothetical
prudent fiduciary could have made.”

Appellee’s Br. 16 (emphasis

added).
But we, like our sister circuits, have adopted the “would
have” standard to determine a fiduciary’s objective prudence.
As

the

Supreme

Court

has

explained,

the

distinction

between

“would” and “could” is both real and legally significant.

See

divestment of stock, while Kuper involved a challenge to the
retention of stock.
Second, Tatum has established that RJR
breached its fiduciary duty; Kuper never established this.
Notably, the Sixth Circuit, which decided Kuper, has since
expressly recognized, at least with respect to the amount of
damages,
that
when
a
fiduciary
breach
is
established,
“uncertainty
should
be
resolved
against
the
breaching
fiduciary.” Gilley, 290 F.3d at 830 (emphasis added).
38

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 39 of 85

Knight v. Comm’r, 552 U.S. 181, 187-88, 192 (2008).

In opining

that this distinction is simply “semantics at its worst,” the
dissent

ignores

Knight.

“could”

describes

what

There,
is

the

merely

describes what is probable.

Court

instructed

possible,

Id. at 192.

while

that

“would”

“[D]etermining what

would happen if a fact were changed . . . necessarily entails a
prediction; and predictions are based on what would customarily
or commonly occur.”
have

occurred,

by

Id. (emphasis added).
contrast,

spans

a

Inquiring what could

much

broader

range

of

decisions, encompassing even the most remote of possibilities.
See id.

at

something

188

is

(“The

one

fact

reason

that

he

an

individual

would . . .,

but

could . . . do
not

the

only

possible reason.”).
The “would have” standard is, of course, more difficult for
a

defendant-fiduciary

result.

to

satisfy.

And

that

is

the

intended

“Courts do not take kindly to arguments by fiduciaries

who have breached their obligations that, if they had not done
this, everything would have been the same.”
Inc.,

605

F.2d

624,

636

(2d

Cir.

1979).

In re Beck Indus.,
ERISA’s

statutory

scheme is premised on the recognition that “imprudent conduct
will usually result in a loss to the fund, a loss for which [the
fiduciary] will be monetarily penalized.”

Plasterers’, 663 F.3d

at 218 (quoting Brock, 830 F.3d at 647).

We would diminish

ERISA’s enforcement provision to an empty shell if we permitted
39

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 40 of 85

a breaching fiduciary to escape liability by showing nothing
more than the mere possibility that a prudent fiduciary “could
have” made the same decision.

As the Secretary of Labor notes,

this approach would “create[] too low a bar, allowing breaching
fiduciaries to avoid financial liability based on even remote
possibilities.”

Amicus Br. of Sec’y of Labor 23. 14

To support its contrary argument, RJR heavily relies on
then-Judge Scalia’s concurrence in Fink v. Nat’l Sav. & Trust
Co., 772 F.2d 951 (D.C. Cir. 1985), in which he states:
I know of no case in which a trustee who has happened
–- through prayer, astrology or just blind luck –- to
make
(or
hold)
objectively
prudent
investments . . . has been held liable for losses from
those
investments
because
of
his
failure
to
investigate or evaluate beforehand.
Id. at 962 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part).

But, despite the protestations of RJR and the dissent,

14

Moreover, notwithstanding the suggestion of RJR and the
dissent, the Supreme Court in Dudenhoeffer did not hold that the
“could have” standard applies in determining whether a trustee,
like RJR, who has utterly failed in its duty of procedural
prudence, has nonetheless acted in an objectively prudent manner
and so not caused loss to the plan.
Rather, Dudenhoeffer
addressed an allegation that a fiduciary failed to act on
insider information. In this very different context, the Court
held that when “faced with such claims,” courts should “consider
whether the complaint has plausibly alleged that a prudent
fiduciary in the defendant’s position could not have concluded
that [acting on insider information] would do more harm than
good.”
Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 573 U.S. --, at 20 (emphasis
added).
The Court’s use of “could not have” in this limited
context does not cast doubt on our instruction that a “would
have” standard applies to determine loss causation after a
fiduciary breach has been established.
40

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 41 of 85

this observation is entirely consistent with the “would have”
standard we adopted in Plasterers’.
saying

the

same

thing:

that

It is simply another way of
a

fiduciary

who

fails

to

“investigate and evaluate beforehand” will not be found to have
caused a loss if the fiduciary would have made the same decision
if

he

had

“investigat[ed]

and

evaluat[ed]

beforehand.”

Id.

Stated yet another way, the inquiry is whether the loss would
have occurred regardless of the fiduciary’s imprudence.
Of course, intuition suggests, and a review of the case law
confirms, that while such “blind luck” is possible, it is rare.
When a plaintiff has established a fiduciary breach and a loss,
courts tend to conclude that the breaching fiduciary was liable.
See Peabody, 636 F.3d at 375; Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289
F.3d 1223, 1239 (10th Cir. 2002); Meyer v. Berkshire Life Ins.
Co., 250 F. Supp. 2d 544, 571 (D. Md. 2003), aff’d, 372 F.3d
261, 267 (4th Cir. 2004); cf. Chao v. Hall Holding Co., 285 F.3d
415, 434, 437-39 (6th Cir. 2002); Donovan v. Cunningham, 716
F.2d 1455, 1476 (5th Cir. 1983).

As explained above, that is

precisely the result anticipated by ERISA’s statutory scheme.
B.
Alternatively,
court erred

in

RJR

applying

maintains
the

that,

“could

even

have”

have” standard, the error was harmless.

if

rather

the

district

than

“would

This is so, in RJR’s

view, because the facts found by the district court as to the
41

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 42 of 85

high-risk nature of the Nabisco Funds unquestionably establish
that a prudent fiduciary would have eliminated them from the
Plan.

Appellee’s Br. 20.

This argument also fails.

Although risk is a relevant consideration in evaluating a
divestment decision, risk cannot in and of itself establish that
a

fiduciary’s

decision

was

objectively

prudent.

Indeed,

in

promulgating the regulations governing ERISA fiduciary duties,
the Department of Labor expressly rejected such an approach.
its

Preamble

Responsibility,

to

Rules

the

and

Department

Regulations
explained,

as

for
we

In

Fiduciary

noted

above,

that “the risk level of an investment does not alone make the
investment per se prudent or per se imprudent.”
Plan

Assets

under

the

“Prudence”

37,225 (June 26, 1979).

Rule,

44

Fed.

Investment of
Reg.

37,221,

Moreover, the Department instructed

that:
an investment reasonably designed –- as part of a
portfolio –- to further the purposes of the plan, and
that is made upon appropriate consideration of the
surrounding facts and circumstances, should not be
deemed to be imprudent merely because the investment,
standing alone, would have, for example, a relatively
high degree of risk.
Id. at 37,224 (emphasis added); see also Dudenhoeffer, No. 12751, 573 U.S. --, at 15 (“Because the content of the duty of
prudence
time

the

turns

on

‘the

fiduciary

circumstances . . . prevailing’

acts,

§ 1104(a)(1)(B),

the

at

the

appropriate

inquiry will necessarily be context specific.” (alteration in
42

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

original));

Filed: 08/04/2014

DiFelice,

497

F.3d

Pg: 43 of 85

at

420

(holding

that,

when

determining whether an ERISA fiduciary has acted prudently, a
court must consider the “character and aim of the particular
plan and decision at issue and the circumstances prevailing at
the time”).

In sum, while the presence of risk is a relevant

consideration in determining whether to divest a fund held by an
ERISA plan, it is not controlling.

We must therefore reject

RJR’s contention that it would necessarily be imprudent for a
fiduciary to maintain an existing single-stock investment in a
plan that, like the Plan at issue here, offers participants a
diversified portfolio of investment options.
Moreover, we cannot hold that the district court’s error in
adopting

the

“could

have”

standard

was

harmless

when

the

governing Plan document required the Nabisco Funds to remain as
frozen funds in the Plan.

ERISA mandates that fiduciaries act

“in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the
plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent
with [ERISA].”

29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D). 15

15

Accordingly, courts

On appeal, RJR suggests that following the Plan terms
would have been inconsistent with ERISA.
Specifically, RJR
asserts that if it had maintained the Nabisco Funds as frozen
funds after the spin-off, it would have violated ERISA’s
requirement that fiduciaries “diversify[] investments of the
plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses.”
Id.
§ 1104(a)(1)(C).
Thus, RJR argues that it “was required to
divest the Nabisco Funds from the Plan.”
Appellee’s Br. 27.
Before the district court, however, RJR properly “admit[ted]
(Continued)
43

Appeal: 13-1360

have

Doc: 94

found

a

Filed: 08/04/2014

breaching

Pg: 44 of 85

fiduciary’s

failure

to

follow

plan

documents to be highly relevant in assessing loss causation.
See Allison, 289 F.3d at 1239; Dardaganis, 889 F.2d at 1241. 16
Tatum stipulated at trial that he would not assert that RJR’s
failure to adhere to the Plan’s terms rendered RJR automatically
liable under § 1109(a).
that

the

Plan

terms

But he expressly preserved his argument

are

“highly

relevant”

to

the

causation

analysis and that “a prudent fiduciary would have taken [them]
into account” in deciding whether to divest.

Appellant’s Br. 28

n.13; see also Mem. re: Legal Effect of Invalid Plan Amendment
at 2, Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Pension Inv. Comm. (2013)(No. 1:02cv-00373-NCT-LPA), ECF No. 365.

Therefore, the district court

erred by failing to factor into its causation analysis RJR’s
lack of compliance with the governing Plan document.
For

all

of

these

reasons,

after

careful

review

of

the

record, we cannot hold that the district court’s application of

that there are no regulations prohibiting single stock funds of
any kind in an ERISA plan.” Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at 681. See
supra note 5; see also H.R. Rep. No. 93-1280, reprinted at 1974
U.S.C.C.A.N.
5038,
5084-85
(explaining
that
whether
a
fiduciary’s
investment
of
plan
assets
violates
the
diversification duty depends on the “facts and circumstances of
each case”).
16
Of course, this does not mean, as the dissent suggests,
that plan terms trump the duty of prudence.
It simply means
that plan terms, and the fiduciary’s lack of compliance with
those terms, inform a court’s inquiry as to how a prudent
fiduciary would act under the circumstances.
44

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 45 of 85

the incorrect “could have” standard was harmless.

Particularly

given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding RJR’s decision
to

divest

the

Nabisco

Funds,

including

the

timing

of

the

decision and the requirements of the governing Plan document, we
must conclude that application of the incorrect legal standard
may have influenced the court’s decision.
when

a

district

court

has

applied

“may . . . have

Reversal is required

an

“incorrect

influenced

its

[legal]

standard[]”

that

ultimate

conclusion.”

See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23

(1993).
The district court’s task on remand will be to review the
evidence to determine whether RJR has met its burden of proving
by

a

preponderance

of

the

evidence

that

a

prudent

fiduciary

would have made the same decision.

See Plasterers’, 663 F.3d at

218. 17

must

In

doing

so,

the

court

17

consider

all

relevant

In evaluating the evidence, the district court abused its
discretion to the extent it refused to consider the testimony of
one of Tatum’s experts, Professor Lys, regarding what a prudent
investor would have done under the circumstances.
Even though
Professor Lys lacked expertise as to the specific requirements
of ERISA, his testimony was relevant as to what constituted a
prudent investment decision. See Plasterers’, 663 F.3d at 218;
see also Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 586 (7th Cir.
2009) (“A fiduciary must behave like a prudent investor under
similar circumstances . . . .”); Katsaros v. Cody, 744 F.2d 270,
279-80 (2d Cir. 1984) (noting that an investment expert’s lack
of experience with pension fund management did not affect his
qualifications to testify as to what constituted a prudent
investment decision in an ERISA case).
On remand, the court
should consider this with all other relevant evidence.
45

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 46 of 85

evidence, including the timing of the divestment, as part of a
totality-of-the-circumstances

inquiry.

See

Dudenhoeffer,

12-751, 573 U.S. --, at 15; DiFelice, 497 F.3d at 420.
after

weighing

all

of

the

evidence,

the

district

No.

Perhaps,

court

will

conclude that a prudent fiduciary would have sold employees’
existing

investments

at

the

time

and

in

the

manner

RJR

did

because of the Funds’ high-risk nature, recent decline in value,
and RJR’s interest in diversification.

Or perhaps the court

will instead conclude that a prudent fiduciary would not have
done so, because freezing the Funds had already mitigated the
risk and because divesting shares after they declined in value
would

amount

to

“selling

low”

despite

fundamentals and positive market outlook.
district

court

must

reach

its

conclusion

Nabisco’s

strong

In either case, the
after

applying

the

standard this court announced in Plasterers’ -- that is, whether
“a

hypothetical

decision anyway.”

prudent

fiduciary

would

have

made

the

same

663 F.3d at 218 (quotation marks omitted)

(emphasis added).
C.
Before concluding our discussion of loss causation, we must
briefly address the dissent’s apparent misunderstanding of our
holding, the facts found by the district court, and controlling
legal principles.

46

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 47 of 85

The dissent repeatedly charges that we hold RJR “monetarily
liable

for

objectively

prudent

investment

decisions.”

It

further charges that we have “confuse[d] remedies” -- claiming
that fiduciaries who act with procedural imprudence should be
released from their fiduciary duties but not held monetarily
liable.

These charges misstate our holding.

Our
court’s

decision
holdings

is

a

that

modest
RJR

one.

We

breached

its

affirm
duty

prudence and that a substantial loss occurred.

the
of

district

procedural

We simply remand

for the district court to determine whether, under the correct
legal standard, RJR’s imprudence caused that loss.

If the court

determines that a fiduciary who conducted a proper investigation
would

have

reached

the

same

decision,

RJR

will

escape

all

monetary liability, notwithstanding its procedural imprudence.
But

if

the

court

concludes

to

the

contrary,

then

the

law

requires that RJR be held monetarily liable for the Plan’s loss.
For,

as

fiduciary

noted
“who

above,

Congress

breaches

any

has

of

expressly

provided

the . . . duties

that

imposed

a

[by

ERISA] shall be personally liable to make good to [the] plan any
losses to the plan resulting from [the] breach.”

29 U.S.C.

§ 1109(a) (emphasis added).
Thus, contrary to the dissent’s rhetoric, nothing in our
holding requires a fiduciary to “make a decision that in the
light of hindsight proves best.”
47

Instead, a fiduciary need only

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 48 of 85

adhere to its ERISA duties to avoid liability.

So long as a

fiduciary undertakes a reasoned decision-making process, it need
never

fear

monetary

liability

for

an

investment

decision

determines to be in the beneficiaries’ best interest.

it

This is

so even if that investment decision yields an outcome that in
hindsight

proves,

“optimal.”

in

dissent’s

language,

less

than

Indeed, our holding, like ERISA’s statutory scheme,

acknowledges

the

uncertainty

investment decision.
fiduciaries

the

to

of

outcomes

inherent

in

any

Precisely for this reason, ERISA requires

undertake

a

reasoned

prior to making such decisions.

decision-making

process

Only because RJR failed to do

so here will it be monetarily liable under § 1109(a) for any
losses caused by its imprudence.
The dissent paints RJR as a faultless victim that, after
following a “prudent investment strategy” has fallen prey to
“opportunistic
“penalizing

litigation.”

the

RJR

In

fiduciaries

properly diversifying the plan.”

the
for

dissent’s
doing

view,

nothing

we

more

are
than

But the district court’s well-

supported factual findings establish that RJR did a good deal
more

(or,

more

precisely,

a

good

deal

less).

It

made

a

divestment decision that cost its employees millions of dollars
with

“virtually

no

discussion

or

analysis,”

without

consideration of any alternative strategy or consultation with
any experts, and without considering “the purpose of the Plan,
48

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 49 of 85

which was for long term retirement savings,” or “the purpose of
the spin-off, which was, in large part, to allow the Nabisco
stock a chance to recover from the tobacco taint and hopefully
rise in value.”

Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at 678-79.

RJR carried

out this decision by adhering to a timeline that was “chosen
arbitrarily and with no research.”

Id. at 679.

And in doing

so, RJR failed to act “solely in the interests of participants
and beneficiaries” and instead “improperly considered its own
potential

liability.”

Id.

at

681.

Indeed,

the

extent

of

procedural imprudence shown here appears to be unprecedented in
a reported ERISA case.
The dissent eschews the loss-causation standard that this
court articulated in Plasterers’, and would instead apply a new
standard that it dubs “objective prudence simpliciter.”

Because

this standard is not self-defining (and the dissent does not
attempt to define it) it is unclear how this standard would
operate in practice.
that

its

“objective

At times, the dissent’s analysis suggests
prudence

“could have” standard.
“could

have”

standard

simpliciter”

test

is

in

fact

a

But, of course, the application of a
contravenes

our

instructions

in

Plasterers’ and elides the critical distinction between “could
have” and “would have” that the Supreme Court drew in Knight.
Far from “fuss[ing]” over “semantics,” we are merely applying
the law.
49

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Moreover,

Filed: 08/04/2014

the

dissent

Pg: 50 of 85

fails

to

acknowledge

the

alarming

consequences of its “objective prudence simpliciter” standard.
Pursuant

to

effectively

this

standard,

unenforceable

ERISA’s
time

any

talisman of “diversification.”

protections
fiduciary

a

would

invokes

be
the

Under the dissent’s reading of

the statute, any decision assertedly “made in the interest of
diversifying

plan

“objectively

prudent.”

investment
liability
fiduciary

assets”

decisions

diversification,

This

beyond

provision.
could

would

As

claim

a

the

reach

result,

would

automatically

approach

that

ERISA

be

it

in

would
of

numerous

ERISA’s

any

case

acted

neither

put

in

deter

deemed

fiduciary

in

which

pursuit
a

a
of

fiduciary’s

imprudent decision-making, nor provide a make-whole remedy for
injured beneficiaries.

Congress certainly did not intend this

result when it expressly provided that a fiduciary who breaches
“any” of its ERISA duties “shall be personally liable” for “any
losses to the Plan resulting from [the] breach.”

29 U.S.C.

§ 1109(a).
The
authorized

Department
to

of

promulgate

Labor,

the

regulations

body

Congress

interpreting

expressly rejected the dissent’s approach.

specially
ERISA,

has

Thus, the Department

explains that “the relative riskiness of a specific investment
or investment course of action does not render such investment
or investment course of action either per se prudent or per se
50

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

imprudent.”

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 51 of 85

44 Fed. Reg. 37,221, 37,222.

Rather, “the prudence

of an investment decision should not be judged without regard to
the role that the proposed investment or investment course of
action plays within the overall plan portfolio.”

Id.

A court

cannot, as the dissent does, impose its own construction of a
statute instead of that of the agency that Congress has vested
with authority to interpret and administer it.

See Chevron v.

Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984).
By applying a new standard of its own making, by ignoring
the command in § 1109(a), and by refusing to follow

precedent

or defer to appropriate regulations, it is the dissent who, in
its words, employs “linguistic contortions” to “obfuscate rather
than illuminate” the law and “overrid[e] the statute.”

Unlike

the dissent, we refuse to make up and then apply an approach, at
odds with the law, that would render ERISA a nullity in the face
of any after-the-fact

diversification defense.

VI.
Finally, we address the district court’s orders dismissing
the Benefits Committee and Investment Committee as defendants
and denying
individual

Tatum

leave

committee

to

members

amend
as

his

complaint

defendants.

We

to

name

the

review

the

former de novo, Smith v. Sydnor, 184 F.3d 356, 360-61 (4th Cir.

51

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 52 of 85

1999), and the latter for an abuse of discretion, Galustian v.
Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 729 (4th Cir. 2010).
A.
The court dismissed the Benefits Committee and Investment
Committee as defendants because it concluded that “committees”
are

not

“persons”

capable

of

being

sued

under

ERISA.

That

statute defines “person” to include “an individual, partnership,
joint venture, corporation, mutual company, joint-stock company,
trust,

estate,

employee
court

unincorporated

organization.”

erred

in

reading

organization,

29

U.S.C.

this

list

association,

§ 1002(9).
as

The

or

district

exhaustive.

That

the

provision does not expressly list “committees” does not mean
that committees cannot be “persons who are fiduciaries” under
ERISA.
We need look no further than the statute itself to conclude
that a committee may be a proper defendant-fiduciary.

ERISA

provides that a “named fiduciary” is a “fiduciary who is named
in

the

plan

instrument.”

Id.

§ 1102(a)(2).

The

statute

requires that a plan document “provide for one or more named
fiduciaries who jointly or severally shall have authority to
control

and

plan.”

Id.

manage

the

operation

§ 1102(a)(1).

This

and

administration

requirement

of

ensures

the
that

“responsibility for managing and operating the [p]lan -- and
liability

for

mismanagement

-52

are

focused

with

a

degree

of

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

certainty.”

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 53 of 85

Birmingham v. SoGen-Swiss Int’l Corp. Ret. Plan,

718 F.2d 515, 522 (2d Cir. 1983)(emphasis added).

Here, the

Committees are the only named fiduciaries in the governing Plan
document.

As such, these entities are proper defendants in a

suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the Plan.
Accord H.R. Rep. No. 93-1280 (1974) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in
1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5038, 5075-78 (noting that a board of trustees
could be a plan fiduciary even though “board” is not expressly
listed as “person” under ERISA).
Furthermore, Department of Labor regulations interpreting
the statute clearly state that a committee may serve as the
named fiduciary in a plan document.
at

FR-1.

And

this

and

other

See 29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-5,

courts

have

routinely

found

committees to be proper defendant-fiduciaries in ERISA suits.
See, e.g., Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir.
2009); In re Schering-Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 420 F.3d 231,
233, 242 (3d Cir. 2005); Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp., 875
F.2d 1075, 1080 (4th Cir. 1989).

The district court’s contrary

holding is at odds with the Department of Labor regulations and
these

cases. 18

Accordingly,

we

must

reverse

the

court’s

dismissal of the Benefits Committee and Investment Committee.

18

To the extent there is any ambiguity in the relevant
provisions, we conclude that in interpreting the word “person”
and its corresponding definition at 29 U.S.C. § 1002(9), we
(Continued)
53

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 54 of 85

B.
After limitations had run, Tatum moved for leave to amend
his first amended complaint to name the individual committee
members.

The court denied the motion on the ground that Tatum’s

claims against the individual committee members did not “relate
back” to those in his first amended complaint, and thus the
statute of limitations barred suit against them.
As the district court correctly recognized, an amendment to
add

an

additional

asserted

in

the

party

proposed

“relates

back”

amendment

when

arises

(1)

out

of

the

claim

the

same

conduct set forth in the original pleading, and (2) the party to
be added (a) received timely notice of the action such that he
would not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits,
and (b) knew or should have known that he would have been named
as defendant “but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s
identity.”
concluded

Fed.
that

R.

the

Civ.

P.

15(c)(1).

The

district

individual

committee

members

were

court
not

on

notice that they would have been named as defendants but for a
mistake concerning their identity.

The court did not abuse its

discretion in so holding.

should take into account “Congress’s broad remedial goals,” In
re Beacon Assocs. Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 697, 706 (S.D.N.Y.
2011), which is consistent with our holding that “committees”
are proper defendant-fiduciaries in ERISA suits.

54

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 55 of 85

In both his original complaint and in his first amended
complaint,

Tatum

Committees.

named

as

defendants

only

RJR

and

the

Tatum’s decision not to include as defendants the

individual committee members reflected “a deliberate choice to
sue one party instead of another while fully understanding the
factual and legal differences between the two parties.”

Krupski

v. Costa Crociere S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538, 549 (2010).

This, the

Supreme

making

mistake

Court

has

concerning

explained,
the

“is

proper

the

antithesis

party’s

of

identity.”

a

Id.

Accordingly, the Court has held that Rule 15(c)’s requirements
are not satisfied when, as here, “the original complaint and the
plaintiff’s conduct compel the conclusion that the failure to
name the prospective defendant in the original complaint was the
result of a fully informed decision.”

Id. at 552.

VII.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
holding that RJR breached its duty of procedural prudence and so
carries

the

burden

of

proof

judgment in favor of RJR.

on

causation,

but

vacate

the

We reverse the order dismissing the

Benefits Committee and the Investment Committee as defendants,
but affirm the order denying Tatum’s motion for leave to amend
his complaint to add additional defendants.

We remand the case

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
55

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 56 of 85

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN
PART, REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

56

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 57 of 85

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
After a four-week bench trial, the district court found
that the investment decisions of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(RJR) fiduciaries were objectively prudent.
refused

to

hold

the

RJR

fiduciaries

It thus properly

personally

liable

for

alleged plan losses.
Yet this court, breaking new ground, reverses the district
court.

With all respect for my two fine colleagues, I do not

believe

ERISA

allows

plan

fiduciaries

to

be

held

monetarily

liable for prudent investment decisions, and especially not for
those made in the interest of diversifying plan assets.

Market

conditions can, of course, create fluctuations, but a prudent
investment decision does not by definition cause a plan loss,
the precondition under 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a) for imposing personal
monetary liability upon fiduciaries.
The statutory remedy for a breach of procedural prudence
that

precedes

a

reasonable

investment

decision

includes,

explicitly, the removal of plan fiduciaries.

The majority goes

much

the

further,

forcing

fiduciaries

personal monetary liability instead.
is

wrong

three

times

over,

and

to

face

prospect

of

This confusion of remedies
its

consequences

will

be

especially unfortunate for those who rely on ERISA plans for the
prudent

administration

of

their

57

retirement

savings.

As

for

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 58 of 85

those who might contemplate future service as plan fiduciaries,
all I can say is: Good luck.
First, and yet again, under the remedial scheme laid out by
ERISA,

fiduciaries

objectively

should

prudent

not

investment

be

held

monetarily

decisions.

This

liable
is

true

for
for

whatever standard -- "would have,” “could have,” or anything
else -- one adopts for loss causation.

As I shall show, the

majority has adopted the wrong standard, one that strays from
the statutory test of objective prudence under then existing
circumstances, and one that trends toward a view of prudence as
the single best or most “likely” decision rather than a range of
reasonable
Despite

judgments

the

in

majority’s

the

uncertain

business

protestations,

its

of

investing.

reversal

of

the

district court’s well-grounded finding of objective prudence and
its imposition of a far more stringent test signals fiduciaries
that henceforth they had better make a decision that in the
light of hindsight proves the best.
Second, monetary liability is even less appropriate where,
as here, the reasonable decision was taken in the interests of
asset diversification.
that

the

RJR

And third, on this record, the notion

fiduciaries’

decision

to

liquidate

the

Nabisco

stocks was anything but prudent borders on the absurd.
ERISA

is,

first

and

foremost,

meant

to

protect

plan

participants from large, unexpected losses, including those that
58

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

result

from

funds.

The fiduciaries knew this fact and acted upon it, only

to

find

holding

Pg: 59 of 85

that

prudent

undiversified

decisions,

single-stock

like

good

non-employer

deeds,

do

not

go

unpunished when the breezes of legal caprice blow in the wrong
direction.
As

judges,

antagonists.
larger

we

tend

to

regard

the

parties

before

It is, after all, an adversary system.

sense,

the

interests

fiduciaries often align.

of

plan

us

as

But, in a

participants

and

plan

It does neither any good to run up

plan overhead with litigation over investment decisions taken,
as this one was, to diversify plan assets and protect employees
down life’s road.

All will be losers -- perhaps fiduciaries

most immediately but plan participants, sadly, in the end.
I.
A.
It

is,

to

repeat,

doubtful

that

ERISA-plan

fiduciaries

should ever be held monetarily liable for objectively reasonable
investment decisions.

This follows from § 1109 of ERISA, which

provides that fiduciaries that breach their duties of procedural
prudence “shall be personally liable to make good to such plan
any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach.”
U.S.C. § 1109(a) (emphasis added).

29

In other words, monetary

liability under § 1109 lies for a fiduciary’s breach of the duty
of procedural prudence only where a plaintiff also establishes
59

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

loss

Filed: 08/04/2014

causation.

uncertain,

not

Because
every

Pg: 60 of 85

investment

investment

outcomes

decision

that

are

always

leads

to

a

diminution in plan assets counts as a loss for § 1109 purposes.
Rather, loss causation only exists if the substantive decision
was,

all

things

considered,

an

objectively

unreasonable

one.

If, by contrast, we might expect a hypothetical prudent investor
to consider the decision prudent, the loss cannot be attributed
to the actual fiduciaries.
This interpretation of § 1109’s text is well established.
Then-Judge Scalia’s opinion in Fink v. National Savings & Trust
Co., 772 F.2d 951 (D.C. Cir. 1985), is the locus classicus for
the need to prove substantive imprudence prior to the imposition
of

personal

monetary

liability

under

§ 1109.

In

Fink,

he

observed that he knew of
no case in which a trustee who has happened -- through
prayer, astrology or just blind luck -- to make (or
hold)
objectively
prudent
investments
(e.g.,
an
investment in a highly regarded “blue chip” stock) has
been held liable for losses from those investments
because of his failure to investigate and evaluate
beforehand.
Id. at 962 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part).

The majority misreads the Fink concurrence to require

that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary make “the same decision.”
Maj. Op. at 41.

In so doing, the majority imputes its own

erroneous interpretation of loss causation into Justice Scalia’s
invocation of “objectively prudent investments.”
60

Indeed, the

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

example

Filed: 08/04/2014

Justice

Scalia

gave

Pg: 61 of 85

--

an

investment

in

a

highly

regarded blue chip stock -- demonstrates the obvious: just as
there

is

more

reasonable

than

range

of

one

such

blue

investments

chip

that

stock,

qualify

as

there

is

a

objectively

prudent.
Although there is an evidentiary relationship between the
breach of a fiduciary’s duty of procedural prudence and loss
causation, these two elements of fiduciary liability under ERISA
are distinct: “It is the imprudent investment rather than the
failure to investigate and evaluate that is the basis of suit;
breach of the latter duty is merely evidence bearing upon breach
of the former, tending to show that the trustee should have
known more than he knew.”

Fink, 772 F.2d at 962 (Scalia, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The question posed by this case has in fact already been
decided.

This circuit has embraced Justice Scalia’s approach.

In Plasterers’ Local Union No. 96 Pension Plan v. Pepper, 663
F.3d 210 (4th Cir. 2011), we considered a suit for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA against former plan fiduciaries.

We

noted that “simply finding a failure to investigate or diversify
does not automatically equate to causation of loss and therefore
liability.”

663

F.3d

at

217.

Rather,

in

order

to

hold

fiduciaries “liable for damages based on their given breach of
[their] fiduciary dut[ies]” described in 29 U.S.C. § 1104, a
61

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 62 of 85

“court must first determine that the [fiduciaries’] investments
were imprudent.”
Scalia’s

Id.; see also id. at 218 (quoting Justice

opinion

in

Fink).

The

loss,

in

other

words,

must

“result[] from” the breach, 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a), which it cannot
if the investment itself was a prudent one. 1
Our

sister

circuits

have

also

generally

adopted

Justice

Scalia’s reasoning as to loss causation in Fink.

See, e.g.,

Renfro

Cir.

v.

(approving

Unisys
of

Corp.,

the

671

F.3d

314,

objective-prudence

322
test

(3d
for

2011)

fiduciary

liability under ERISA); Kuper v. Iovenko, 66 F.3d 1447, 1459-60
(6th

Cir.

1995),

abrogated

on

other

grounds

by

Fifth

Third

Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 573 U.S. __, slip op. at 8
(June 25, 2014); Roth v. Sawyer-Cleator Lumber Co., 16 F.3d 915,
919 (8th Cir. 1994) (“Even if a trustee failed to conduct an
1

The majority claims that “in Plasterers’, we turned to the
standard set forth by our sister circuits.
Thus, we explained
that a decision is ‘objectively prudent’ if ‘a hypothetical
prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision anyway.’”
Maj. Op. at 35 (quoting Plasterers’, 663 F.3d at 218). Nothing
could be more in error.
Nothing -- no combination of phrases,
words, or syllables -- in Plasterers’ amounts to an adoption of
a “would have” standard. The quotation the majority treats as a
holding was used merely to demonstrate that “causation of loss
is not an axiomatic conclusion that flows from a breach” of a
procedural duty. 663 F.3d at 218. In actuality, the holding of
the court was that fiduciaries “can only be held liable for
losses to the Plan actually resulting from their failure to
investigate.”
Id.
The brief snippet the majority quotes from
appellants’ brief in Plasterers’, Maj. Op. at 36 n.12, only
fortifies the central point: “Would have” versus “could have”
was not discussed, was not briefed, and was not before the
court.
62

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 63 of 85

investigation before making a decision, he is insulated from
liability if a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made
the same decision anyway.”).
studious

fiduciary

may

be

To be sure, the insufficiently
(and

relieved of his responsibilities.

quite

possibly

should

be)

But for monetary liability to

attach, it matters not whether the fiduciary spent a relatively
longer or shorter time on a decision, so long as that investment
decision was prudent in the end.
B.
The

requirement

corollaries.
plaintiff’s
ERISA.

of

First,
burden

loss

loss

in

causation
causation

establishing

has

three

remains

monetary

important

part

of

liability

the
under

This is because, as I have noted above, loss causation

is an element of a claim under § 1109, which requires that the
losses “result[] from” the breach of fiduciary duty.
§ 1109(a);

see

also

Plasterers’,

663

F.3d

at

217

29 U.S.C
(“[W]hile

certain conduct may be a breach of an ERISA fiduciary’s duties
under [29 U.S.C.] § 1104, that fiduciary can only be held liable
upon a finding that the breach actually caused a loss to the
plan.”).
Even

if,

as

the

district

court

found,

the

burden

of

production shifts to the defendant once the plaintiff makes a
prima facie case for breach and loss, see Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco

Co.,

926

F.

Supp.

2d

648,
63

683

(M.D.N.C.

2013),

the

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 64 of 85

burden of proof (persuasion) must lie with the plaintiff, where,
as here, Congress has not provided for burden shifting to the
defendant.

Leaving the burden of proof with the plaintiff is

consistent with the Supreme Court’s recognition of the “ordinary
default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove
their claims,” including each required element.
rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56 (2005).

Schaffer ex

It also accords

with this court’s observation that, “[w]hen a statute is silent,
the

burden

initiating

of
the

proof

is

proceeding

normally
and

allocated

seeking

to

the

relief.”

party

Weast

v.

Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer, 377 F.3d 449, 452 (4th Cir. 2004),
aff’d, 546 U.S. 49.
The weight of circuit precedent supports keeping the burden
of proof on the party bringing suit.
Mut.

Ben.

(Jacobs,
damages

Life
J.,

is

Ins.

with

. . .

Co.,

138

Meskill,
an

element

F.3d

J.,
of

See, e.g., Silverman v.
98,

105

concurring)
the

[ERISA]

(2d

Cir.

1998)

(“Causation
claim,

and

of
the

plaintiff bears the burden of proving it.”); Kuper, 66 F.3d at
1459 (“[A] plaintiff must show a causal link between the failure
to investigate and the harm suffered by the plan.”); Willett v.
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., 953 F.2d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir.
1992)

(noting

that

“the

burden

of

proof

on

the

issue

of

causation will rest on the beneficiaries” who must “establish

64

Appeal: 13-1360

that

Doc: 94

their

Filed: 08/04/2014

claimed

losses

Pg: 65 of 85

were

proximately

caused”

by

the

fiduciary breach).
The
shifting

cases
the

cited

burden

distinguishable. 2

by
of

Tatum
proof

and
to

the

RJR

on

majority
loss

to

justify

causation

are

Several deal with self-dealing, a far more

serious breach of fiduciary duty than simple lack of prudence.
See, e.g., McDonald v. Provident Indem. Life Ins. Co., 60 F.3d
234, 237 (5th Cir. 1995); N.Y. State Teamsters Council v. Estate
of DePerno, 18 F.3d 179, 182 (2d Cir. 1994); Martin v. Feilen,
965 F.2d 660, 671–72 (8th Cir. 1992).

The majority’s reliance

on our opinion in Brink v. DaLesio, 667 F.2d 420 (4th Cir.
1982), is also unavailing, since that case not only dealt with
self-dealing, but also concerned the burden of proof regarding
the extent of liability, not the existence of loss causation.
See 667 F.2d at 425-26.

More relevant to this case is United

States Life Insurance Co. v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank, 685 F.2d
887 (4th Cir. 1982), in which we rejected
the novel proposition that, whenever a breach of the
obligation by a trustee has been proved, the burden
shifts to the trustee to establish that any loss
suffered by the beneficiaries of the trust was not
proximately due to the default of the trustee, and
that, unless the trustee meets this burden, recovery

2

For clarity, this opinion also refers to the various other
RJR-related entities, such as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings,
Inc., and the RJR Pension Investment and Employee Benefits
Committees, simply as RJR.
65

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

against
course.

Filed: 08/04/2014

the

trustee

685 F.2d at 896.

for

Pg: 66 of 85

the

full

loss

follows

in

Our precedent and the first principles of

civil liability indicate that, while the burden of production
may shift as a case progresses, the burden of persuasion should
remain with the plaintiff in a § 1109 action.
The second notable consequence of § 1109’s requirement of
loss causation is a practical one: it is generally difficult to
establish loss causation when a fiduciary’s substantive decision
is objectively prudent.

This is because objectively prudent

decisions tend not to lead to losses to the plan.

But even

where they do, they are not the sort of losses contemplated by
the § 1109 remedial scheme, since it is unreasonable to fault a
prudent
even

investment

the

“[t]he

best-laid

entire

Congress’[s]

strategy

for

investment

statutory

overriding

the

plans

scheme

of

concern

in

statistical
often

go

ERISA

reality

awry.

Because

demonstrates

enacting

the

that

law

that

was

to

insure that the assets of benefit funds were protected for plan
beneficiaries,”

it

follows

that

fiduciaries

who

“act

imprudently, but not dishonestly, . . . should not have to pay a
monetary penalty for their imprudent judgment so long as it does
not result in a loss to the [f]und.”
217

(internal

quotation

marks

Plasterers’, 663 F.3d at

omitted)

Robbins, 830 F.2d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 1987)).

66

(quoting

Brock

v.

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Thirdly,

the

Pg: 67 of 85

loss-causation

requirement

shows

majority has misconceived ERISA’s remedial scheme.

how

the

Section 1109

sets out the appropriate remedies in those situations where a
fiduciary’s breach of procedural prudence does not result in
losses:

“other

removal

of

equitable

such

or

remedial

fiduciary.”

29

relief . . . ,

U.S.C.

§ 1109(a);

including
see

also

Brock, 830 F.2d at 647 (“If [a plaintiff] can prove to a court
that certain trustees have acted imprudently, even if there is
no

monetary

interests

loss

of

as

a

ERISA

result

are

of

furthered

the

imprudence,

by

entering

then

the

appropriate

injunctive relief such as removing the offending trustees from
their

positions.”);

fiduciary

duty

to

Fink,

772

investigate

F.2d
and

at

962

evaluate

action to enjoin or remove the trustee . . . .
sustain

an

action

investments.”)
relief

as

liability
causation.

(citation

removal
that

for

is

ERISA

the

damages

omitted).
in

direct

imposes

only

would

a

the

sustain

from

provision

contrast

of

an

But it does not

arising

This

upon

(“Breach

to

the

finding

losing

for

such

monetary
of

loss

ERISA is a “comprehensive and reticulated statute,”

Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 251 (1993) (internal
quotation marks omitted), and Congress crafted its provisions
with care.

Removing a fiduciary is one thing; holding that same

fiduciary personally liable for a prudent investment decision is
something else altogether.

Where, as here, the statutory text
67

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 68 of 85

speaks clearly to the proper use of monetary versus other, more
traditionally

equitable

remedies,

it

should

be

followed,

not

flouted.
The majority gets this all wrong.

It states that § 1109(a)

“provides for both monetary and equitable relief, and does not
(as the dissent claims) limit a fiduciary’s liability for breach
of the duty of prudence to equitable relief.”
(emphasis in original).

Maj. Op. at 17

Of course it provides for both, but it

provides for monetary liability only to make good losses to the
plan resulting from the breach.

And here the court found after

a month-long trial that such losses did not result, because the
investment

decision

was

itself

objectively

prudent.

It

is

astounding that ERISA fiduciaries are henceforth going to be
held personally liable when losses did not “result from” any
breach on their part.

The majority decision quite simply reads

the words “resulting from” right out of the statute.
C.
The majority, Tatum, and Tatum’s amici focus on supposed
distinctions

between

whether

a

hypothetical

prudent

fiduciary

“would have” or merely “could have” made the same decision that
the RJR fiduciaries did.

They then fault the district court for

using the latter standard.

Tatum argues that the “could have”

standard used by the district court will turn ERISA’s demanding
fiduciary obligations into a “corporate business judgment rule,”
68

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 69 of 85

since it “renders irrelevant the prudence or non-prudence of the
fiduciaries’

actions

in

Appellant at 36, 37.
a

“could

have”

making

those

decisions.”

Br.

of

The Acting Secretary of Labor argues that

standard

“creates

too

low

a

bar,

allowing

breaching fiduciaries to avoid financial liability based even on
remote possibilities.”
The

majority’s

Br. of Acting Sec’y of Labor at 23.

claim

that

the

district

court’s

approach

“encompass[es] even the most remote of possibilities,” Maj. Op.
at 39, is a serious mischaracterization.

As the district court

observed, this is a “strained reading” of its view, which was
simply that objective prudence does not dictate one and only one
investment decision.

Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at 683.

ERISA

requires that a fiduciary act “with the care, skill, prudence,
and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a
prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such
matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like
character and with like aims.”
also 29

C.F.R.

29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B); see

§ 2550.404a-1(a).

As

a

result,

the

district

court’s standard would not be satisfied merely by imagining any
single hypothetical fiduciary that might have come to the same
decision.

Rather,

it

asks

whether

hypothetical

prudent

fiduciaries consider the path chosen to have been a reasonable
one.

The Supreme Court recently came to a similar conclusion.

The Court suggested that where a plaintiff alleges that ERISA
69

Appeal: 13-1360

plan

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

fiduciaries

should

have

Pg: 70 of 85

utilized

inside

information

in

administering single-stock funds, courts “should also consider
whether

the

complaint

has

plausibly

alleged

that

a

prudent

fiduciary in the defendant’s position could not have concluded
that” acting on the inside knowledge “would do more harm than
good.”

Fifth Third, slip op. at 20 (emphasis added).

That ERISA’s duty of prudence allows for the possibility
that there may be several prudent investment decisions for any
given scenario should not be a surprise.

Investing is as much

art as science, in which there are many options with uncertain
outcomes,
experts

any

number

conceded

at

of

which

trial

may

that

be

prudent.

prudent

minds

Tatum’s
may

own

disagree,

indeed diametrically, over the preferable course of action in a
particular situation.

Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at 683 n.27, 690.

Thus, a decision may be objectively prudent even if it is not
the

one

that

plaintiff,

armed

hindsight, now thinks is optimal.
standard.

with

all

the

advantages

of

Optimality is an impossible

No investor invariably makes the optimal decision,

assuming we know what that decision even is.
Ultimately, the majority’s and Tatum’s minute parsings of
the differences between “would have” and “could have” obfuscate
rather than illuminate.

It is semantics at its worst.

The same

is true of their definition of a reasonable investment decision
as the one that hypothetical prudent fiduciaries would “more
70

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 71 of 85

likely than not” have come to.

This provides no legal basis on

which to reverse the district court’s simple finding, after a
month-long

bench

trial,

that

defendants

made

an

objectively

prudent investment decision here.
What might plaintiffs’ new semantics mean?
plaintiffs’

“would

have”

standard

to

permit

Reading the

fiduciaries

to

escape monetary liability only if they make the decision that
the

majority

of

hypothetical

prudent

fiduciaries

would

likely than not” have made is all too treacherous.

“more

Not only

does the “more likely than not” language insistently urged by
the majority, plaintiff, and his various amici find no support
in statute or regulation.
upon the Act.
prudence

to

Not only is it a transparent gloss

It seeks to shift the standard of objective
one

of

relative

prudence:

whether

prudent

fiduciaries would “more likely than not” have come to “the same
[investment] decision” that defendants did.

Maj. Op. at 37; Br.

of Appellant at 7; see also Br. of Acting Sec’y of Labor at 23;
Br. of AARP & Nat’l Emp’t Lawyers Ass’n at 14.
orders

the

fiduciary

district
who

court

conducted

a

reached the same decision.”

on

remand

proper

to

divine

investigation

The majority
whether
would

“a
have

Maj. Op. at 47 (emphasis added).

The only possible effect of such language is to squeeze and
constrict and, once again, to ignore the fact that there is not

71

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 72 of 85

one and only one “same decision” that qualifies as objectively
prudent.
Thus plaintiff would substitute for the fiduciary’s duty to
make

a

prudent

decision

a

duty

to

make

the

decision, something ERISA has never required.

best

possible

Take a scenario

in which 51% of hypothetical prudent fiduciaries would act one
way and 49% would act the other way.

What sense, let alone

justice, is there in penalizing a fiduciary merely for acting in
accordance
minority?

with

a

view

that

happens

to

be

held

by

a

bare

And how, absent an unhealthy dose of hindsight, could

we ever know the precise breakdown of hypothetical fiduciaries
with regard to a particular investment decision?

See Br. of

Chamber of Commerce of U.S. of Am. & Am. Benefits Council at 1516.
While the majority protests it has not adopted the most
prudent standard, its actions speak louder than words.

It has

reversed a “merely” prudent, eminently sensible decision, and
demanded

much

more.

Moreover,

all

its

fuss

over

“would

have/could have” carries us far from the general standard of
objective prudence embodied in § 1104(a)(1)(B).
course,

the

straightforward

test

that

Plasterers’

That is, of
articulated

when it remanded back to the district court to “determine the
prudence of the [fiduciaries’] actual investments.”
219.

663 F.3d at

The majority complains that the dissent fails “to define”
72

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 73 of 85

the objective prudence standard or to say precisely “how this
standard would operate in practice.”
trial

here

practice.

showed

exactly

Prudence

how

depends

Maj. Op. at 49.

that

standard

inescapably

upon

But the

operates

the

in

particular

circumstances confronting fiduciaries; it is a fool’s errand to
attempt

to

without

sketch

the

every

majority’s

situation

that

linguistic

might

arise.

contortions,

the

fiduciary obligations under ERISA is complex enough.
of

scholasticism

the

majority

adds

to

what

Even
law

of

The layer

should

be

a

straightforward factual inquiry into objective prudence helps no
one. One can, of course, play the endless permutations of the
“would have”/”could have” game. But the test is one of objective
prudence simpliciter, taking the circumstances as they existed
at the time.
To
finding

make
of

matters

personal

worse,

the

liability

majority

on

remand.

all
In

but

directs

affirming

a

the

district court’s finding that RJR was procedurally imprudent,
the majority falls over itself in its rush to defer to the
district

court’s

“extensive

factual

findings.”

Id.

at

22.

Fair enough: I have no quarrel with the trial court’s “extensive
factual

findings”

procedurally
substantive

that

imprudent
prudence,

the

RJR

fashion.
the

majority

fiduciaries
Yet
slams

when
the

acted
it

in

comes

door

on

a
to
the

district court’s “extensive factual findings” when the majority
73

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 74 of 85

even so much as deigns to discuss them.

Moreover, the majority

minimizes risk as a factor, stressing instead “the timing of the
decision and the requirements of the governing Plan document,”
id.

at

45,

despite

ERISA’s

express

command

that

fiduciaries

“diversify[] the investments of the plan so as to minimize the
risk

of

clearly

large

losses,

prudent

not

(emphasis added).
Court’s

statement

unless

to

do

under

so.”

29

the

circumstances

U.S.C.

§

it

is

1104(a)(1)(C)

Further, the majority ignores the Supreme
that

§ 1104

“makes

clear

that

the

duty

of

prudence trumps the instructions of a plan document.”

Fifth

Third,

“plan

slip

documents

op.

[are]

at

11.

highly

According
relevant”

to

to
the

the

majority,

objective

prudence

inquiry, Maj. Op. at 44, but risk is merely “relevant,” id. at
43.

It is difficult to see how fiduciaries can survive this

loaded

calculus,

one

in

which

procedural

imprudence

all

but

ensures the obliteration of the loss causation requirement. 3

3

The majority contends that “[u]nder the dissent’s reading
of the statute, any decision assertedly ‘made in the interest of
diversifying
plan
assets’
would
be
automatically
deemed
‘objectively prudent.’”
Maj. Op. at 50.
That statement is
patently incorrect, for if there were any per se rule of the
sort that the majority suggests, there would have been no need
for the district court to conduct an extended trial considering
all the circumstances, including the timing of the decision and
the governing plan document, that bore on the investment
judgment.
In point of fact, it is the majority that minimizes
the importance of asset diversification as one of the factors
bearing upon the objective prudence inquiry despite ERISA’s
clear instruction to the contrary.
74

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 75 of 85

D.
There is one final point.

The majority tries to justify

what it is doing with the thought that its approach is necessary
to deter fiduciaries from imprudent behavior.

But that in no

way justifies overriding the statute –- in particular § 1109,
which establishes a requirement of loss causation, and § 1104,
which

establishes

circumstances.

a

This

standard
is

a

of

prudence

rewriting

of

the

under

all

statute,

the
and,

frankly, Congress’s wisdom is a lot more persuasive than the
majority’s.
Under

the

statute

as

written,

the

standard

used

by

the

district court deters fiduciaries from procedural imprudence by
the threat of removal and from substantive imprudence by the
knowledge that resulting losses to the fund will in fact lead to
liability.

As

we

said

in

Plasterers’,

quoting

the

Seventh

Circuit:
The only possible statutory purpose for imposing a
monetary penalty for imprudent but harmless conduct
would be to deter other similar imprudent conduct.
However, honest but potentially imprudent trustees are
adequately deterred from engaging in imprudent conduct
by the knowledge that imprudent conduct will usually
result in a loss to the fund, a loss for which they
will be monetarily penalized.
This monetary sanction
adequately deters honest but potentially imprudent
trustees.
Any additional deterrent value created by
the imposition of a monetary penalty is marginal at
best.
No ERISA provision justifies the imposition of
such a penalty.

75

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 76 of 85

663 F.3d at 217-18 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Brock, 830 F.2d at 640).
II.
Even if one thinks that monetary liability should somehow
attach to prudent investment decisions, it should almost never
lie

where

interest

the
of

decision

was

diversifying

diversification

in

made,

plan

retirement

as

this

assets.
plans

is

one
The

was,

in

importance

reflected

in

the
of

ERISA’s

text, which explicitly requires plan fiduciaries to “diversify[]
the investment of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large
losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not
to do so.”

29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(C) (emphasis added).

“Diversification is fundamental to the management of risk
and is therefore a pervasive consideration in prudent investment
management.”

Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 227 cmt. f (1992).

Diversification’s

ability

to

reduce

risk

while

preserving

returns is a major focus of modern portfolio theory, which has
been

adopted

both

by

the

investment

community

and

by

the

Department of Labor in its implementing regulations for ERISA.
See DiFelice v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 497 F.3d 410, 423 (4th Cir.
2007) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 2550-404a-1).

Diversification is even

more important in the context of retirement savings, where the
avoidance of downside risk is of paramount concern.
is not an entrepreneur. . . .

“A trustee

He is supposed to be careful
76

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

rather than bold.”

Pg: 77 of 85

Armstrong v. LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass'n, 446

F.3d 728, 733 (7th Cir. 2006).
Although ERISA does not in so many words require every fund
in an investment plan to be fully diversified, each fund, when
considered individually, must be prudent.
F.3d at 423.

See DiFelice, 497

This is because 401(k) participants could easily

view the inclusion of a fund as an endorsement of it by the plan
fiduciaries and invest a sizeable portion or even the entirety
of their assets in a high-risk fund.
concerned
maintain

about
a

this

very

prohibition

Nabisco funds.

on

The RJR fiduciaries were

possibility
making

new

when

they

decided

investments

into

to
the

See Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 926 F.

Supp. 2d 648, 661-62 (M.D.N.C. 2013).
In addition, once plan participants allocate their assets
among various funds, there is a substantial risk that inertia
will keep them from carefully monitoring and reallocating their
retirement savings to take into account changing risks.

Indeed,

a witness for RJR testified at trial that over 40% of plan
participants who had invested in the Nabisco funds did not make
a

single

voluntary

plan

transfer

period from 1997 to 2002.
plan

already

maintaining

contained

the

Nabisco

an

over

a

five-and-a-half-year

See J.A. 846-48.
employer-only

funds

would

77

Because the RJR

single-stock

multiply

the

fund,

number

of

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 78 of 85

risky, single-stock funds in which RJR plan participants could
invest.

See Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at 685.

The

requirement

prudent rather
each fund.

than

that

management

aggressive

of

retirement

strongly

supports

plans

be

diversifying

As the district court recognized, a “single stock

fund carries significantly more risk than a diversified fund.”
Id. at 684; see also Summers v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 453
F.3d 404, 409 (7th Cir. 2006).
funds

are

See,

generally

e.g.,

disfavored

DiFelice,

497

F.3d

For this reason, single-stock
as

ERISA

at

424

investment

(noting

vehicles.

that

“placing

retirement funds in any single-stock fund carries significant
risk,

and

so

purposes”).

would
To

be

seem
sure,

generally
Congress

imprudent

has

for

provided

a

ERISA
limited

exception from ERISA’s general diversification requirements for
certain
U.S.C.

types

of

employer-only

§§ 1104(a)(2),

single-stock

1107(d)(3).

Still,

inherently “are not prudently diversified.”

funds.

See

single-stock

29

funds

Fifth Third Bancorp

v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 573 U.S. __, slip op. at 5 (June
25,

2014)

(emphasis

congressional
“[t]here

is

in

carve-out
a

sense

in

original).
for

And

employer-only

which,

because

single-stock fund] is imprudent per se.”
732.

78

of

absent

this

narrow

single-stock

funds,

risk

aversion,

[a

Armstrong, 446 F.3d at

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 79 of 85

In this case, the Nabisco funds were even more dangerous
than an ordinary single-stock fund.

Because of the “tobacco

taint” and the risk that a massive tobacco-litigation judgment
against

RJR

Nabisco

funds

itself.

could

also

was

harm

Nabisco,

potentially

the

correlated

performance

of

the

with

of

RJR

that

Thus, retirement plans containing the Nabisco funds

were doubly undiversified.

First, they included the stocks of a

single company rather than a range of companies.

Second, the

same external forces that could harm RJR –- and thus imperil the
employment of plan participants -– could simultaneously tank the
value of the Nabisco funds.

See Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at 685.

In other words, keeping the Nabisco funds in the RJR plan would
create the risks of an Enron-like situation, in which the health
of an employer and the retirement savings of its employees could
be adversely affected simultaneously.

See Richard A. Oppel Jr.,

Employees’ Retirement Plan Is a Victim as Enron Tumbles, N.Y.
Times, Nov. 22, 2001, at A1.

But unlike the employer single-

stock

legislative

funds

that

might

have

sanction,

no

such

congressional approval existed for the Nabisco funds.
By penalizing the RJR fiduciaries for doing nothing more
than

properly

threaten

to

diversifying
whipsaw

retirement funds.
of

seeing

plan

the

plan,

investment

the

managers

majority
of

and

pension

Tatum
and

The majority’s approach falls into the trap
fiduciaries

and
79

participants

as

inveterate

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

adversaries.
Fiduciaries

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 80 of 85

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
often

act

to

the

and

they

do

so

participants,

inestimable
most

clearly

ERISA’s mandate to diversify plan holdings.
approach

will

opportunistic

wreak

havoc

litigation

financial decisions.

to

upon

this

challenge

to

diversify

when

they

plan
follow

But the majority’s

harmony,

even

of

the

encouraging

most

sensible

Here, the RJR fiduciaries knew they had a

ticking time bomb on their hands.
failed

benefit

and

the

Nabisco

Had the plan fiduciaries
stocks

had

continued

to

decline, the fiduciaries would have been sued for keeping the
stocks.

As the Supreme Court noted:

[I]n many cases an ESOP fiduciary who fears that
continuing to invest in company stock may be imprudent
finds himself between a rock and a hard place: If he
keeps investing and the stock goes down he may be sued
for
acting
imprudently
in
violation
of
§ 1104(a)(1)(B), but if he stops investing and the
stock goes up he may be sued for disobeying the plan
documents in violation of § 1104(a)(1)(D).
Fifth Third, slip op. at 14.

Putting plan managers in a cursed-

if-you-do, cursed-if-you-don’t situation is unfair to them and
damaging to ERISA-plan administration generally.
III.
Even if prudent decisions made in the interest of asset
diversification could ever lead to monetary liability, it is
inconceivable that they could do so on these facts.

80

As the

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 81 of 85

district court well understood, if monetary liability lies here,
then it will lie for a great many other prudent choices as well.
“[W]hether

a

fiduciary’s

measured in hindsight . . . .”

actions

are

prudent

cannot

be

DiFelice v. U.S. Airways, Inc.,

497 F.3d 410, 424 (4th Cir. 2007).

This is because “the prudent

person standard is not concerned with results; rather it is a
test of how the fiduciary acted viewed from the perspective of
the time of the challenged decision rather than from the vantage
point of hindsight.”

Roth v. Sawyer-Cleator Lumber Co., 16 F.3d

915,

1994)

918

(8th

Cir.

marks omitted).

(alteration

and

internal

quotation

“Because the content of the duty of prudence

turns on ‘the circumstances . . . prevailing’ at the time the
fiduciary acts, § 1104(a)(1)(B), the appropriate inquiry will
necessarily

be

context

specific.”

Fifth

Third

Bancorp

v.

Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751, 573 U.S. __, slip op. at 15 (June 25,
2014) (alteration in original).
In

addition

to

the

diversification

imperatives

described

above, there were at least three reasons for the RJR fiduciaries
to eliminate, at the time they had to make the decision, the
Nabisco stocks from the RJR 401(k) plan.

First, as found by the

district court, there was a substantial threat to the Nabisco
stocks’ share prices from the “tobacco taint.”
Reynolds
2013).

Tobacco

Co.,

926

F.

Supp.

2d

648,

Tatum v. R.J.

659-60

(M.D.N.C.

Although Nabisco had theoretically insulated itself from
81

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 82 of 85

liability for RJR’s tobacco-related litigation by entering into
indemnification agreements with RJR, there was always a danger
that holders of judgments against RJR might sue Nabisco for any
amount that RJR could not pay.

This danger became especially

acute after a Florida jury ruled in July 1999 against RJR in a
class-action lawsuit.

Id. at 659.

As the damages portion of

the trial began in the fall of 1999, RJR began to worry that it
would not be able to fully pay a multibillion dollar award and
that

members

remainder.

of

the

class

Id. at 660.

would

sue

Nabisco

for

the

unpaid

In a June 1999 report to the SEC,

Nabisco acknowledged these very risks.

Id. at 659.

And when

RJR lost an important punitive-damages ruling in the Florida
suit, the stock prices of RJR and Nabisco both dropped sharply.
Id. at 660.

Indeed, the Florida jury ultimately awarded the

class over $140 billion in punitive damages.
(Related litigation is ongoing.

Id. at 660 n.9.

On July 18, 2014, a Florida

jury awarded $23.6 billion in punitive damages against RJR in an
individual case stemming from that class action.)
Second, Nabisco’s stock prices had been steadily falling
since the two companies split.

Between June 15, 1999, when the

split was finalized, and January 31, 2000, when RJR sold the two
Nabisco

had

fallen

substantially in value, one by 60% and the other by 28%.

Id. at

666.

stocks

Cautious

in

its

401(k)

fiduciaries

plan,

would
82

their

naturally

prices

view

optimistic

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 83 of 85

glosses on Nabisco’s continuing stock decline with skepticism.
Not only were analyst reports during the dot-com bubble colored
by “optimism bias,” but even the neutral and positive reports
noted the effect of the tobacco taint and that the current share
price might well be accurate.

Id. at 662-63.

And even had RJR

chosen to keep the Nabisco stocks, there was, as the district
court

noted,

no

reason

to

think

that

the

stocks

would

have

provided above-market returns, given the public nature of the
relevant financial information and the general efficiency of the
stock

market.

Id.

at

686-88.

As

the

Supreme

Court

has

recognized, “a fiduciary usually ‘is not imprudent to assume
that a major stock market . . . provides the best estimate of
the value of the stocks traded on it that is available to him.’”
Fifth Third, slip op. at 17 (quoting Summers v. State Street
Bank & Trust Co., 453 F.3d 404, 408 (7th Cir. 2006)) (alteration
in original).
Third, the ultimate cause of the dramatic appreciation in
Nabisco

stock

prices

in

2000

--

the

bidding

war

sparked

by

investor Carl Icahn’s takeover bid -- was totally unexpected by
RJR,

analysts,

acquired

a

and

large

the
block

broader
of

market.

Nabisco

shares

Notably,
in

when

Icahn

November

1999,

Nabisco’s stock prices did not react and analyst reports did not
mention a possible takeover bid.

Tatum, 926 F. Supp. 2d at 688.

In addition, the RJR-Nabisco split was structured such that the
83

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 84 of 85

spinoff would be tax-free as long as, broadly speaking, Nabisco
did not initiate a corporate restructuring within two years.
Id. at 653.

Thus, a takeover by Icahn was only feasible if he

initiated it.

This limitation made an Icahn offer, and the

consequent bidding war, even less likely.

Id. at 688-89.

Ultimately, the RJR fiduciaries had little reason to think
that the Nabisco stocks in the 401(k) plan would appreciate in
value, and every reason to worry that they would continue to
decline.
funds

The fiduciaries’ decision to liquidate the Nabisco

was

prudent,

and

certainly

not

“clearly

imprudent.”

Plasterers’ Local Union No. 96 Pension Plan v. Pepper, 663 F.3d
210, 219 (4th Cir. 2011).

Arguably, it was the most prudent of

the options available, for it protected plan participants from
the dangers of risky shares held in undiversified plan funds.
To hold otherwise requires viewing the RJR fiduciaries’ actions
through the lens of hindsight, a grossly unfair practice that
our precedent categorically forbids.
IV.
The

majority

has

reversed

the

most

substantiated

of

district court findings under the most stringent of hindsight
tests.

To impose personal monetary liability upon fiduciaries

for prudent investment decisions made in the interest of asset
diversification makes no sense.
to,

despite

all

the

words

from
84

What this decision will lead
the

majority

and

Tatum,

is

Appeal: 13-1360

Doc: 94

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 85 of 85

litigation at every stage behind reasonable investment decisions
by

ERISA-plan

fiduciaries.

Who

would

want

to

serve

as

a

fiduciary given this kind of sniping?
ERISA was “intended to ‘promote the interests of employees
and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.’”
v.

U.S.

Airways,

Inc.,

497

F.3d

410,

417

(4th

DiFelice

Cir.

2007)

(quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983)).
Yet far from safeguarding the assets of ERISA-plan participants,
the litigation

spawned

plan-administration

and

by

the

majority

insurance

will

costs.

simply

It

will

drive

up

discourage

plan fiduciaries from fully diversifying plan assets.

It will

contribute to a climate of second-guessing prudent decisions at
the point of market shift.

It will disserve those whom ERISA

was intended to serve when fiduciaries are hauled into court for
seeking, sensibly, to safeguard retirement savings.
I

had

always

entertained

the

quaint

penalized people for doing the wrong thing.

thought

that

law

Now the majority

proposes to penalize those whom the district court found after a
month-long

trial

did

indisputably

the

right

thing

professional parlance, the objectively prudent thing.
I would affirm.

85

--

in