Amgen Inc. v. Harris

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
13-888 9th Cir. Not Argued Jun 30, 2014 TBD TBD OT 2013

Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that respondents, in seeking to prove their claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), could invoke the presumption of class-wide reliance approved by this Court for securities claims in Basic Inc. v. Levinson; (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that a fiduciary of a company’s employee-retirement plan must act -- with respect to publicly-traded securities -- on non-public information about the company in order to avoid liability under ERISA; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the “presumption of prudence,” which protects ERISA fiduciaries from liability in certain circumstances, applies only if the relevant retirement-plan language requires or encourages a fiduciary to invest in the employer’s own stock.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded on June 30, 2014.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders
Jan 10 2014Application (13A729) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 21, 2014 to February 3, 2014, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Jan 21 2014Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2014)
Jan 24 2014Application (13A729) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until February 3, 2014.
Feb 14 2014Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 26, 2014.
Mar 26 2014Brief of respondents Steve Harris, et al. in opposition filed.
Apr 8 2014Reply of petitioners Amgen Inc., et al. filed.
Apr 9 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 25, 2014.
Jun 23 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.
Jun 23 2014Supplemental brief of petitioners Amgen Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 25 2014Supplemental brief of petitioners filed. (Second Supplement) (Distributed)
Jun 26 2014Supplemental brief of respondent Steve Harris, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 30 2014Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U. S. ___ (2014).
Aug 1 2014JUDGMENT ISSUED.
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards