Hanson v. Lawson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a company officer who \use[d] . . . plan assets to pay [c]ompany creditors\ was a fiduciary
• holding that a legal conclusion that a particular individual qualifies as a fiduciary under ERISA is subject to de novo review
• holding that a “common law conversion claim . . . is nothing more than an alternative theory of recovery for conduct actionable under ERISA, and as such is preempted by ERISA”
• observing that, under New York law an action will lie, in certain circumstances, for the conversion of money
• holding that the commingling of plan assets with a company’s general assets and using those assets to pay creditors instead of forwarding them to the Funds rendered defendant “a fiduciary for purposes of imposing personal liability under ERISA”
• stating that a district court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).