How have courts dealt with allegations of imprudence and impropriety in the context of fiduciary malpractice in relation to the distribution of retail class shares?

^[42] Id. at 719 (describing allegations that would be sufficient to raise a plausible inference of imprudence and withstand a motion to dismiss); see also Sweda v. Univ. of Pa., 923 F.3d 320, 331 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S.Ct. 2565 (2020) (reversing dismissal of claim alleging "that despite the availability of low-cost institutional class shares, [the fiduciary] selected and retained identically managed but higher cost retail class shares," where the complaint included "a table comparing options in the Plan with the readily available cheaper alternatives").

^[43] Palin, 940 F.3d at 809.

^[44] Sweda, 923 F.3d at 333.

^[45] PBGC, 712 F.3d at 718 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

^[46] Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 597 (8th Cir. 2009).