Company Argues Plaintiffs’ Case “Grinds to a Halt”
Dish’s motion zeroes in on the timeline. The plaintiffs argue that the plan’s committee should have removed the Fidelity funds in March 2016, a single quarter into the certified class period. But Dish maintains that neither of the plaintiffs’ experts could prove that the funds were “objectively imprudent” at any point.
“Neither of their experts has opined (or could opine) that the Funds were objectively imprudent at any time in the class period — let alone the first quarter of 2016,” the company asserted.
Dish further blasted the damages analysis as speculative, claiming the experts relied on just “three prior quarters” to allege that the committee acted too slowly.
Dish Says Workers “Chased Returns” Against Fiduciary Judgment
Dish accused the plaintiffs of trying to “inject rotten oil into the machinery of the plan,” saying they wrongly assume the company was obligated to drop funds based on minor short-term dips.
“The plaintiffs’ invitation that the Court find the Committee was required to chase returns or hurriedly jettison an investment option flies in the face of the Plan’s IPS, reasoned fiduciary judgment, and the weight of controlling caselaw,” Dish said.
The telecom company emphasized that its committee acted prudently, following its Investment Policy Statement (IPS) and adhering to fiduciary standards, even during market fluctuations.
