182543P.pdf   07/28/2020  Ann Dormani  v.  Target Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  18-2543
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kobes, Author, with Shepherd and Grasz, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - ERISA. In action alleging Target and its ESOP investment 
   committee failed to protect the Plan from the fall in Target's stock price 
   after the failure of Target's expansion into Canada, the plaintiffs failed 
   to show the committee members violated the duty of prudence they owed as 
   fiduciaries; a reasonably prudent fiduciary could believe that early 
   disclosure of the information about the failing Canadian operations was 
   the more dangerous course of action than the actions taken; with respect 
   to plaintiffs' claim the fiduciaries violated the duty of loyalty in 
   administering the plan because of their potential conflicts, plaintiffs 
   point to nothing more than the tension inherent in fiduciaries' dual roles 
   as ERISA fiduciaries and Target officers, and they fail to state a claim 
   for breach of loyalty; with respect to the claim that the fiduciaries 
   breached the duty of loyalty by making misleading statements to Plan 
   participants, the complaint fails to allege that the fiduciaries knew they 
   were making untruthful statements and fails to specify which statements 
   were untrue; plaintiff's claim that Target's CEOs breached their duty to 
   monitor the other ERISA fiduciaries fails without an underlying breach of 
   duty.