The AMGEN INC. v. HARRIS case is significant in establishing the standard for plaintiffs to bring a claim against an ERISA fiduciary based on an alleged breach of the duty of prudence through the use of inside information. The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs must plausibly allege that the defendant could have taken an alternative action consistent with securities laws and that a prudent fiduciary in the same situation could not have concluded that the alternative action would do more harm than good. This sets a high bar for plaintiffs to meet in order to bring such a claim, as they must show that the fiduciary had a viable alternative course of action that would have been clearly better than the chosen course of action.