Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp.

24 Citing cases

  1. Tibble v. Edison International

    639 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the inclusion of sector funds is not per se imprudent

    A "party in interest" is defined broadly to include "any fiduciary, a person providing services to the plan, an employer whose employees are covered by the plan, and certain shareholders and relatives." Chao v. Hall Holding Co., Inc., 285 F.3d 415, 424 (6th Cir. 2002); Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F.Supp.2d 1213, 1222 (N.D.Cal. 2008) (Citing Hall). Section 1106(b) "creates a per se ERISA violation; even the absence of bad faith, or in the presence of a fair and reasonable transaction, [§ 1106(b)] establishes a blanket prohibition of certain acts, easily applied, in order to facilitate Congress' remedial interest in protecting employee benefit plans."

  2. Yamauchi v. Cotterman

    84 F. Supp. 3d 993 (N.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 44 times
    Finding no fiduciary duty when plaintiff failed to allege counterparty had vulnerability such as youth or ill health "so as to give rise to equitable concerns"

    “The ‘fraud or concealment’ exception ... does not apply simply because an ERISA fiduciary fails to disclose material information.” DeFazio v. Hollister, Inc., 636 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1057–58 (E.D.Cal.2009) ; Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F.Supp.2d 1213, 1226 (N.D.Cal.2008) (concluding lack of disclosure of self-interest “does not rise to the level of active concealment”); see alsoLarson v. Northrop Corp., 21 F.3d 1164, 1173–74 (D.C.Cir.1994). Evidence of the affirmative conduct of active concealment is necessary.

  3. Linna Chea v. Lite Star Esop Committee

    1:23-cv-00647-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2024)

    29 U.S.C. § 1106(a). “ERISA § 406(a) begins with the premise that virtually all transactions between a plan and a party in interest are prohibited, unless a statutory or administrative exemption applies.” Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F.Supp.2d 1213, 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (emphasis in original); Gamino, 2021 WL 5104382, at *1 (same). “A fiduciary who engages in a self-dealing transaction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1108(e) has the burden of proving that he fulfilled his duties of care and loyalty and that the ESOP received adequate consideration . . . [and] [t]his burden is a heavy one.

  4. Feikes v. Cardiovascular Surgery Assocs. Profit Sharing Plan, Tr.

    2:04-cv-1724-LDG-GWF (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    This "tolling provision applies to cases in which a plaintiff can prove that a defendant 'made knowingly false misrepresentations with the intent to defraud the plaintiffs,' or took 'affirmative steps' to conceal its own alleged breaches." Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F. Supp.2d 1213, 1225-26 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Barker v. Am. Mobil Power Corp., 64 F.3d 1397, 1401 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)). Thus, "[Plaintiff] must show that [Defendants] engaged in affirmative acts intended to conceal a breach of fiduciary duty separate from the breach of fiduciary duty itself."

  5. Liao v. Fisher Asset Mgmt.

    24-cv-02036-JST (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2024)

    C. Prohibited Transaction “ERISA § 406 sets forth certain types of transactions between a plan and other parties that are per se prohibited.” Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F.Supp.2d 1213, 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

  6. Nagy v. CEP Am.

    23-cv-05648-RS (N.D. Cal. May. 30, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Defendants point to no authority that Plaintiffs must establish whether the fees the Plan paid to Vituity were “reasonable” in order to state a § 406(a)(1)(D) prohibited transaction claim. See Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F.Supp.2d 1213, 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (noting § 406(a) “begins with the premise that virtually all transactions between a plan and a party in interest are prohibited”). Whether the fees paid to Vituity were reasonable is more relevant to whether, for instance, the § 408(c)(2) exemption applies.

  7. Lauderdale v. NFP Ret.

    8:21-cv-00301-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    A party may be found to have breached the duty of loyalty, “even if the party has not committed a per se prohibited transaction under ERISA.” Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F.Supp.2d 1213, 1223 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

  8. Sargent v. S. Cal. Edison 401(k) Sav. Plan

    Case No. 20-cv-1296-MMA (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021)

    Id. (quoting DeFaziov. Hollister, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1058 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2008)); see also Barker v. Am. Mobil Power Corp., 64 F.3d 1397, 1401-02 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that the plaintiffs' claim did not fall within the "fraud or concealment" exception because they failed to produce "evidence of affirmative steps" of concealment). The exception "only applies when a defendant has 'taken steps to hide [its] breach of fiduciary duty.'"

  9. Wit v. United Behavioral Health

    Case No. 14-cv-02346-JCS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020)

    Further, a fiduciary must discharge its duties with complete and undivided loyalty to plan participants without any dealing for the fiduciary's own benefit. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A); see Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Under ERISA, "[a]ny person who is a fiduciary with respect to a plan who breaches any of the responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon fiduciaries [under ERISA] shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which have been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary, and shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate, including removal of such fiduciary."

  10. Foster v. Adams & Assocs.

    Case No. 18-cv-02723-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2020)   Cited 8 times

    29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(A), (D). "ERISA § 406(a) begins with the premise that virtually all transactions between a plan and a party in interest are prohibited, unless a statutory or administrative exemption applies." Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2008); see also Del Castillo v. Cmty. Child Care Council of Santa Clara Cty., Inc., No. 17-CV-07243-BLF, 2019 WL 6841222, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) ("ERISA § 406(a)'s prohibited transactions are broad, and they apply to many common transactions ERISA plans routinely engage in."). Transactions are prohibited under ERISA § 406(a) unless they satisfy one of the statutory exemptions set forth in Section 408.