The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to grant certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit’s decision in RJR Pension Investment, et al. v. Tatum, 761 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2014).  A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit held that, because the plaintiff proved that the plan fiduciaries acted imprudently by liquidating the stock fund without the benefit of a proper investigation, the burden of proof shifted to defendants to show that a prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision.  In so ruling, the Court reversed the lower court decision, which had found in favor of defendants because they demonstrated that a prudent fiduciary could have made the same decision.  Defendants asked the Supreme Court to review: (1) whether the Fourth Circuit properly concluded that the burden of proving loss causation shifts to defendants upon a showing a imprudence, and (2) if the burden does shift, whether an ERISA fiduciary can be held liable despite a finding that the challenged investment decision was ultimately objectively prudent, i.e. that a prudent fiduciary could have made the same decision.  The Court’s order denying certiorari may be found at RJR Pension Investment, et al. v. Tatum, No. 14-656, 2015 WL 2473481 (Jun. 29, 2015).