Opinion ID: 778983
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Policy and Relevant Provisions of ERISA

Text: 31 ERISA was enacted in order to protect employee pension and retirement plans. See H.R.Rep. No. 533, 93d Cong., 2nd Sess. 1, reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4639, 4639 (The primary purpose of the bill is the protection of individual pension rights....). One of the ways ERISA accomplishes this goal is by setting forth certain general fiduciary duties applicable to the management of [such] plans. Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 496, 116 S.Ct. 1065, 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996). In relevant part, ERISA provides that a person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent that he or she exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of the plan, or has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21). The fiduciary duties at issue in this case are the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid self-dealing. 32 Under ERISA, the duty of loyalty is expressed as follows: 33 (1)[A] fiduciary shall discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and — 34 (A) for the exclusive purpose of: 35 (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries.... 36 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)(i). The prohibition against self-dealing provides that [a] fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not ... deal with the assets of the plan in his own interest or for his own account. 29 U.S.C. § 1106(b)(1). The district court found that Hancock's breaches of its fiduciary duties implicated both the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid self-dealing. Judgment Opinion, 122 F.Supp.2d at 459-60.