Section 1104 - Fiduciary duties

207 Citing briefs

  1. Mark Burgess et al v. HP Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

    Filed November 2, 2016

    Nor do Plaintiffs allege anything improper about using float interest to defray bank fees, as ERISA expressly authorizes. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A) (fiduciary may “defray[] reasonable expenses” of plan administration). Plaintiffs do not, for example, provide any reason to believe that— contrary to what Plaintiffs’ counsel has been told repeatedly—Fidelity kept as compensation net float interest after defraying reasonable bank fees under its practices before late 2011.

  2. Ragan v. Advanta Corp. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed December 20, 2010

    ...........................................................................................28 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b) .......................................................................................................................35 Case 2:09-cv-04974-CMR Document 57 Filed 12/20/10 Page 10 of 70 x 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B) .............................................................................................................28 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D) .......................................................................................................20, 30 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a) .......................................................................................................................24 29 U.S.C. § 1104(b)(1)(B) .............................................................................................................35 29 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1).............................................................................................................37, 39 29 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1)(B) .............................................................................................................36 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a) .......................................................................................................................11 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2).............................................................................................................11, 29 Case 2:09-cv-04974-CMR Document 57 Filed 12/20/10 Page 11 of 70 1 I.

  3. Goldenberg v. Indel, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed December 21, 2009

    As noted above, ERISA fiduciaries are required to comply with the governing plan documents so long as those documents do not conflict with ERISA. ERISA § 404(a) (1)(D); 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D); Kennedy, 129 S.Ct. at 868; Bennett, 168 F.3d at 679. Thus, unless the investment policy statement (“IPS”) violated ERISA, the fiduciaries were required to follow it.

  4. Hamby v. Morgan Asset Management, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint

    Filed April 10, 2009

    Specifically, ERISA § 404(c) provides that, where a plan “provides for individual accounts and permits a participant to exercise control over the assets in his account,” no fiduciary “shall be liable . . . for any loss, or by reason of any breach, which results from such participant’s or beneficiary’s exercise of control.” 29 U.S.C. § 1104(c). In other words, where a participant chooses his own investments within a plan, a plan sponsor or fiduciary “cannot be a guarantor of outcomes for participants.”

  5. Beesley et al v. International Paper Company et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 5, 2009

    It is not the execution of the contract that is the breach, it is the paying of the excessive fees that is the breach. 29 U.S.C. §1104(a)(1)(A) (plan assets may be Case 3:06-cv-00703-DRH-CJP Document 276 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 36 of 41 37 used to defray only reasonable expenses of administration). Defendants do not dispute they paid Towers Perrin excessive fees after September 2000.

  6. Ilwu-Pma Welfare Plan Board of Trustees et al v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment or Parial Summary Judgment

    Filed January 12, 2017

    There is no evidence whatsoever that CENTRA, or Carewise as its successor, was ever instructed to do otherwise until Ruth James' cryptic email of January 14, 2010. The fact that CG approved each and every discount negotiated by Carewise — and was indisputably aware of the "auto-discount" agreements — further belies any finding of bad faith for purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D). See Burke, 775 F.2d at 91 (if fiduciary's "action is undertaken pursuant to a good faith, albeit erroneous, interpretation, ERISA's fiduciary provisions are not violated"); McDaniel, 817 F.2d at 1373 ("[T]he direct question we face is not whether we believe section 2.10 applies in these circumstances, but instead whether the trustees have adopted a reasonable interpretation of that 15

  7. Pledger et al v. Reliance Trust Company et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed July 25, 2016

    6 connection with their performance of services for the Plan or Trust,” and determining whether the expenses and fees are reasonable. AC ¶77; Doc. 43-4 at 9 (§3.4); 29 U.S.C. §1104(a)(1)(A), §1103(c)(1). Reliance was therefore responsible for monitoring the amount of compensation that the Plan’s recordkeeper, Insperity Retirement Services, received from the Plan.

  8. Horn v. Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, and Memorandum in Support Thereof

    Filed December 19, 2014

    (2) Duty of Care ERISA’s fiduciary duty of care requires a fiduciary to act with “the care, skill, prudence, and diligence…that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use.” 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B). The Amended Complaint does not adequately allege a violation of ERISA’s duty of care with respect to the purportedly inaccurate pension estimate.

  9. Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund, et al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:

    Filed July 21, 2008

    In re Tyco Int’l, Ltd. MDL, No. 02 MD 1357, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24272, at *27 (D.N.H. Dec. 2, 2004); see also 29 U.S.C. § 1104(c). Plaintiffs’ own allegations and the Plans themselves conclusively establish these elements.

  10. Krueger et al v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss/General the First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed May 15, 2012

    Ameriprise and the CBC knew these payments were improper because they had steered Plan fiduciaries to select ATC as recordkeeper, to continue to use Wachovia during the 18-month earn-out period and to select RiverSource and Ameriprise funds that paid fees, revenue sharing and other kickbacks to Ameriprise. See 29 U.S.C. §1104(a) (the duty of loyalty requires a fiduciary to act “for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries…”). Because Ameriprise knew that Plan fiduciaries committed prohibited transactions and breaches of the duties of prudence and loyalty by having the Plan recordkept by ATC and Wachovia, Ameriprise must disgorge their profits from the Plan’s role in that sale back to the Plan under both 29 U.S.C. §1109 and federal common law. Where “no cause of action [is] stated under an ERISA provision, and the