On May 28, 2010, Judge Scheindlin entered an order making a second amendment to the Pension Committee decision. The changes as described in the order are as follows:
The Amended Opinion and Order filed January 15, 2010 is hereby corrected as follows: At page 10, lines 7-10, replace <By contrast, the failure to obtain records from all employees (some of whom may have had only a passing encounter with the issues in the litigation), as opposed to key players, likely constitutes negligence as opposed to a higher degree of culpability> with <By contrast, the failure to obtain records from all those employees who had any involvement with the issues raised in the litigation or anticipated litigation, as opposed to just the key players, could constitute negligence.›.
The changes in the opinion are small–yet significant. Notably, in the context of the failure to obtain records, the opinion no longer includes all employees, just those with an involvement with the issues raised in the litigation or anticipated litigation. Additionally, the opinion changed “likely constitutes negligence” to “could constitute negligence.” Practitioners should take note of the above two changes. While the changes are arguably minor, given how often the Pension Committee case will likely be cited, these small revisions could make all the difference in the right case.