Yates v. Nichols

4 Citing cases

  1. Schweitzer ex rel. Phillips 66 Sav. Plan v. Inv. Comm. of the Phillips 66 Sav. Plan

    312 F. Supp. 3d 608 (S.D. Tex. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    In Schweitzer, the court held that after a corporate spinoff - where a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Corporation became a separate and independent company, Phillips 66 Company, Inc. - stock of ConocoPhillips that was transferred to an employee savings plan established by Phillips 66 no longer qualified as an "employer security," even though the stock was attributable to employee-participants' accounts in their former (ConocoPhillips) ESOP.

    The court therefore has not addressed Defendants section 404(c) argument. Defendants rely heavily on Yates v. Nichols, 286 F.Supp.3d 854 (N.D. Ohio 2017). The facts of Yates

  2. Schweitzer v. Inv. Comm. of Phillips 66 Sav. Plan

    960 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 2020)   Cited 42 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Schweitzer, the Fifth Circuit adopted a variation of this position, positing that "[w]ith a rising market, [participants] chose to retain the [legacy single-stock fund] for over two years, balancing the risk of a want of portfolio diversity against the rising values of [the legacy stock]."

    As a result, their § 1104(a)(1)(C) claim fails.See, e.g. , Yates v. Nichols , 286 F. Supp. 3d 854, 864 (N.D. Ohio 2017) ("[T]he plan participants themselves—rather than the [fiduciaries]—decide how to allocate their contributions among the plan’s investment options. The [fiduciaries], in other words, have no ability to enforce the diversification requirement on the participants.

  3. Disselkamp v. Norton Healthcare, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-00048-GNS (W.D. Ky. Aug. 2, 2019)   Cited 9 times

    A fiduciary "'should not normally invest all or an unduly large portion of plan funds in a single security, or in any one type of security, or even in various types of securities that depend on the success of one enterprise.'" Yates v. Nichols, 286 F. Supp. 3d 854, 862 (N.D. Ohio 2017) (quoting Bruner v. Boatmen's Tr. Co., 918 F. Supp. 1347, 1353 (E.D. Mo. 1996)).

  4. Usenko ex rel. SunEdison Semiconductor Ltd. Ret. Sav. Plan v. SunEdison Semiconductor LLC

    No. 4:17-cv-02227-AGF (E.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2018)

    Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend his complaint, as he has already amended once, and he has failed to identify any basis for further, non-futile amendment. On December 20, 2017, Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority, notifying the Court of Yates v. Nichols, No. 3:17CV1389, 2017 WL 6451888 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2017), a recent federal district court decision rejecting the arguments Plaintiff raises here, including that Dudenhoeffer applies only to employer securities. With the Court's leave, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in response to Defendants' notice, and Defendants filed a short reply.