Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

9-15-2005

In Re: Schering Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 04-3073

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

Recommended Citation "In Re: Schering " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 472. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/472

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 04-3073

IN RE: SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION ERISA LITIGATION,

JINGDONG ZHU, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated; ADRIAN FIELDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Appellants ________________

Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, ALITO, McKEE, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, STAPLETON*, and ALARCON* Circuit Judges ________________

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH AMENDING ORDER

The petition for panel rehearing filed by Appellee in the above entitled case

having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, the

petition is granted for the limited purpose to add a footnote to the Court’s precedential

opinion. As such, the Court’s opinion, filed August 19, 2005, is hereby amended as

follows:

On page 22, insert a footnote at the end of the paragraph immediately after

“presented in this matter.” as follows (and renumber the footnotes that follow

accordingly):

*The Honorable Walter K. Stapleton, Senior Judge, and the Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation are both limited to panel rehearing only. 5 We find our Meonech decision inapposite because the

fiduciaries here were “simply permitted to make . . .

investments” in “employer securities.” 62 F.3d at 571. In so

concluding, we express no opinion on the significance, if any,

of

(a)(2) in the context of this case.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: September 15, 2005

2