Lewis v. Kendrick

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing claim against trustees for failure to take action to recover kickbacks paid by service providers through trustee’s brother-in-law
• commenting that “somewhere between ‘every last detail’ and ‘something was awry’ lies the requisite knowledge of an ERISA violation”
• discussing “ERISA’s imposition of a continuing fiduciary duty” in context of bidding and monitoring responsibilities
• courts must take into account “the complexity of the underlying factual transaction, the complexity of the legal claim and the egregiousness of the alleged violation”
• Under ERISA, a fiduciary has a continuing duty to “review plan investments and eliminate imprudent ones.”
• “Of course people who commit frauds often try to conceal them, as distinct from merely hoping that no one will notice so long as they don’t advertise the fraud.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).