We have extensively discussed LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc. Inc., No. 06-856 (Feb. 20, 2008). We have also discussed Cook v. Campbell, 482 F. Supp.2d 1341 (M.D. Ala. 2007), one of the first cases to consider LaRue's impact on individual claims involving an ESOP. The district court case rejected the attempt to revive a fiduciary breach case. Alabama District Court Rejects Application of LaRue in ESOP Participant Suit provides a detailed analysis of the case and some important takeaways:

The Cook decision is important in a post-LaRue world because of the careful distinctions that the district court has drawn between 401(k) plans and ESOPs, essentially treating ESOPs more like defined benefit plans subject to the Supreme Court's prior holding in Russell, which requires that damages in ERISA cases flow through the plan for the benefit of all plan participants. The decision is also encouraging as it shows that at least one court has not interpreted the LaRue decision to be as broad as many have opined that it would be.