And what we submit is that that kind of attempt to isolate a category of allegation and ask do those allegations just on their own permit an inference of imprudence? Is what do you make of the part of The Ninth Circuit's opinion says it is possible that a plaintiff could make out an imprudence claim by alleging that a plan invested much more in a particularly risky class of assets than did other comparable plans, even if investing in that asset class is not per se imprudent in smaller amounts. They do seem to entertain this idea of asset allocation and say, contrary to what you just said, that you could make out an imprudence claim on that basis? (02:13–02:36)
STATEMENT
Asserts that the Ninth Circuit's opinion allows for an imprudence claim based on asset allocation in risky assets.
This is an excerpt from a raw transcript. The assertions have not been audited or verified. Tap the video to view the source footage and understand the context.