§Why CasetextPricing

Hilda L Solis v. GreatBanc Trust Company et al

MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW

14 Cited authorities

  1. Reich v. Compton

    57 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 187 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plan trustee who essentially negotiated on both sides of a mortgage transaction with the plan violated Section 406(b)

  2. Donovan v. Cunningham

    716 F.2d 1455 (5th Cir. 1983)   Cited 259 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Secretary of Labor is not bound under doctrine of res judicata by the results of private ERISA litigation because of the Secretary's overriding public interest that is separate and distinct from a private litigant's interests

  3. Henry v. Champlain Enterprises, Inc.

    445 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 118 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant "fiduciary bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence" that the § 408(e) exemption is satisfied

  4. Keach v. U.S. Trust Co.

    419 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 109 times
    Holding that fiduciary's acquisition of independent assessment is evidence of a thorough investigation but "is not a complete defense against a charge of imprudence"

  5. Howard v. Shay

    100 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 121 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "ERISA fiduciary must act for the exclusive benefit of plan beneficiaries"

  6. Ziegler v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.

    916 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that plaintiff had actual knowledge of breach even if he could not accurately quantify injury

  7. Defazio v. Hollister, Inc.

    636 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (E.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 9 times

    Nos. CIV. 04-1358 WBS GGH, 05-0559 WBS GGH, 05-1726 WBS GGH, CONSOLIDATED. June 29, 2009. Scottlynn J. Hubbard IV, Lynn Hubbard III, Law Offices of Lynn Hubbard, Chico, CA, James M. Crawford, Jr., Crawford Law Office, P.A., The Woodlands, TX, Daniel E. Wilcoxen, Wilcoxen Callahan Montgomery and Deacon, Russell Glenn Porter, Martin Niels Jensen, Porter Scott, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs. Michael B. Roche, PHV, L. Andrew Brehm, PHV, Schuyler Roche and Zwirner, James W. Ducayet, PHV, Mike Bartolic

  8. Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    926 F. Supp. 2d 648 (M.D.N.C. 2013)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding that the evidence supported finding that a prudent fiduciary "would not have been obligated to maintain the Nabisco Funds" and so could have divested

  9. Cosgrove v. Circle K Corp.

    915 F. Supp. 1050 (D. Ariz. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    No. CIV 89-321-TUC-JMR. December 21, 1995. Erik M. O'Dowd, O'Dowd, Burke Lundquist, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for plaintiffs. Streich Lang, P.A., Susan G. Boswell, Craig H. Kaufman, Tucson, AZ, for Circle K Corp. Lillick Charles, D. Ward Kallstrom, Randall S. Farrimond, San Francisco, CA, for Fred Hervey. ORDER ROLL, District Judge. This is an action brought by Thomas Cosgrove as representative of the Fred Hervey Interests Employees' Benefit Plan ("the Plan"), a retirement plan sponsored by Circle K, under

  10. Section 1113 - Limitation of actions

    29 U.S.C. § 1113   Cited 1,042 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing a six year limitations period in instances of fraud or concealment

  11. Section 20.2031-2 - Valuation of stocks and bonds

    26 C.F.R. § 20.2031-2   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)In general. The value of stocks and bonds is the fair market value per share or bond on the applicable valuation date. (b)Based on selling prices. (1) In general, if there is a market for stocks or bonds, on a stock exchange, in an over-the-counter market, or otherwise, the mean between the highest and lowest quoted selling prices on the valuation date is the fair market value per share or bond. If there were no sales on the valuation date but there were sales on dates within a reasonable period

  12. Section 2550.408b-3 - Loans to Employee Stock Ownership Plans

    29 C.F.R. § 2550.408b-3   Cited 17 times

    (a)Definitions. When used in this section, the terms listed below have the following meanings: (1)ESOP. The term ESOP refers to an employee stock ownership plan that meets the requirements of section 407(d)(6) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and 29 CFR 2550.407d-6 . It is not synonymous with "stock bonus plan." A stock bonus plan must, however, be an ESOP to engage in an exempt loan. The qualification of an ESOP under section 401 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code (the

  13. Section 2550.408b-1 - General statutory exemption for loans to plan participants and beneficiaries who are parties in interest with respect to the plan

    29 C.F.R. § 2550.408b-1   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1)In general. Section 408(b)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act or ERISA) exempts from the prohibitions of section 406(a), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) loans by a plan to parties in interest who are participants or beneficiaries of the plan, provided that such loans: (i) Are available to all such participants and beneficiaries on a reasonably equivalent basis; (ii) Are not made available to highly compensated employees, officers or shareholders in an amount greater

  14. Section 20.2031-4 - Valuation of notes

    26 C.F.R. § 20.2031-4   Cited 4 times

    The fair market value of notes, secured or unsecured, is presumed to be the amount of unpaid principal, plus interest accrued to the date of death, unless the executor establishes that the value is lower or that the notes are worthless. However, items of interest shall be separately stated on the estate tax return. If not returned at face value, plus accrued interest, satisfactory evidence must be submitted that the note is worth less than the unpaid amount (because of the interest rate, date of