donovan v. bierwirth

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
680 F.2d 263 (1982)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), corporate officers serving as trustees of an employee pension plan breach their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence if they make investment decisions with plan assets to defeat a hostile takeover without conducting a careful, impartial, and thorough investigation focused solely on the interests of the plan's participants and beneficiaries. Their decisions must be made with an 'eye single' to the interests of the participants, free from the taint of their conflicting corporate loyalties.

Facts:

LTV Corporation announced a hostile tender offer to purchase 70% of Grumman Corporation's stock for $45 per share, a significant premium over the market price.
John Bierwirth and Robert Freese, who were senior executives at Grumman, publicly and vehemently opposed the LTV offer on behalf of the corporation, stating it was inadequate and not in the best interests of Grumman.
Bierwirth, Freese, and Carl Paladino were also the trustees of the Grumman Corporation Pension Plan, which already owned 525,000 shares of Grumman stock.
As trustees, they met and decided not to tender the Plan's existing shares to LTV, citing concerns about the offer's price and the potential negative impact on the pension fund if LTV, with its underfunded pension plans, took control.
Shortly after, the trustees decided to use over $44 million of the Plan's assets to purchase an additional 1,158,000 shares of Grumman stock on the open market at prices inflated by the tender offer.
The trustees' investigation into LTV's pension plans was cursory, based on public filings, and they did not seek advice from independent counsel regarding their conflict of interest.
After Grumman successfully obtained a court injunction to block the LTV offer, the price of Grumman stock fell significantly, causing a substantial loss to the Plan on its newly purchased shares.

Procedural Posture:

The Secretary of Labor filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against John C. Bierwirth, Robert G. Freese, and Carl A. Paladino, trustees of the Grumman Corporation Pension Plan.
The complaint alleged that the trustees violated their fiduciary duties under ERISA § 404(a) and § 406(b).
The Secretary moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the trustees from dealing in Grumman securities and to appoint a receiver for the securities held by the Plan.
The district court, after reviewing affidavits, depositions, and other documents, concluded that the Secretary had shown a likelihood of success on the claim that the trustees had acted imprudently.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered the appointment of an 'Investment Manager' to act as a receiver for the Plan's Grumman securities.
The trustees (defendants-appellants) filed an expedited appeal of the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do corporate officers serving as trustees of their company's pension plan violate their fiduciary duties under ERISA § 404(a) when, in the context of a hostile takeover bid, they fail to tender the plan's stock and use plan assets to purchase additional company stock at an inflated price without a thorough and independent investigation?

Opinions:

Majority - Friendly, Circuit Judge

Yes. Corporate officers serving as pension plan trustees violate their fiduciary duties under ERISA when they use plan assets to fend off a hostile takeover without a thorough and impartial investigation. Although officers of a corporation who are trustees of its pension plan do not violate their duties by taking action that incidentally benefits the corporation, their decisions must be made with an 'eye single' to the interests of the participants and beneficiaries. Here, the trustees' prior corporate actions in opposing the takeover precluded them from exercising the detached judgment required of fiduciaries. Their investigation into the risks posed by LTV was inadequate; they failed to explore options to protect the Plan, did not consult independent counsel, and based their decisions on incomplete information. Most egregiously, the decision to purchase additional shares at an inflated price was a 'no-win' situation from an investment standpoint, as the stock price was almost certain to fall whether the takeover succeeded or failed, indicating the purchase was motivated by the desire to block the offer rather than to benefit the plan.

Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision in ERISA law, establishing a high standard for fiduciaries who have dual loyalties as both corporate officers and plan trustees, especially during a hostile takeover. It clarifies that the 'solely in the interest of participants' standard is not a mere platitude and requires fiduciaries in conflict-of-interest situations to take affirmative steps, such as conducting a rigorous and independent investigation and possibly retaining outside counsel, to ensure their loyalty to the plan is not compromised. The decision serves as a strong warning that using plan assets as a tool for corporate defense is a breach of fiduciary duty. It emphasizes procedural prudence, meaning the thoroughness of the decision-making process is as important as the decision itself.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: donovan v. bierwirth (1982)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"