Jump to content

Retirement Plans Comm. v. Jander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Retirement Plans Comm. v. Jander
Decided January 14, 2020
Full case nameRetirement Plans Comm. v. Jander
Docket no.18-1165
Citations589 U.S. ___ (more)
Holding
Case vacated and remanded for consideration of arguments made for the first time in the Supreme Court briefing.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceKagan, joined by Ginsburg
ConcurrenceGorsuch
Laws applied
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

Retirement Plans Comm. v. Jander, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declined to make a decision. The Court vacated and remanded to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration of arguments made for the first time in the Supreme Court briefing.[1][2]

Description

[edit]

The petitioners argued that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 imposes no duty on an Employee Stock Ownership Plan fiduciary to act on inside information. The government argued that an ERISA-based duty to disclose inside information that is not otherwise required to be disclosed by the securities laws would "conflict" at least with objectives of the complex insider trading and corporate disclosure requirements imposed by the federal securities laws.[1]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Retirement Plans Comm. v. Jander, No. 18-1165, 589 U.S. ___ (2020).
  2. ^ "Opinion analysis: Justices punt on liability of insiders for mismanagement of pension plans that invest in employer stock". SCOTUSblog. 2020-01-14. Retrieved 2024-11-05.
[edit]
  • Text of Retirement Plans Comm. v. Jander, No. 18-1165, 589 U.S. ___ (2020) is available from: Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain. "[T]he Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834)