To state a viable ERISA claim against the trustees of an ESOP for continuing to invest in the employers’ stock, the plaintiff must plead specific facts showing that an alternative existed and would have benefited the plan’s beneficiaries more than continuing to buy the employer’s stock.  See Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer (2014) 134 S.Ct. 2459.  In doing so, the plaintiff must allege facts peculiar to the employer or the situation that the trustees confronted, not just general economic principles.  Plaintiffs’ allegation that earlier disclosure of disadvantageous facts about the employer might have lessened the damage to the employer’s reputation and mitigated the plunge in its stock price was a general economic principle not tied to the specific facts of the case and so did not suffice to state a claim.