Liss v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that \knowledge with respect to the prohibited nature of the transactions is irrelevant\ for non-fiduciary defendants, because such transactions are per se ERISA violations
• “Employers are 6 parties‐in‐interest [whose] interests are adverse to those of the plan.” (citation 7 omitted)
• “Failure to monitor a fund’s solvency and adjust levels, if proved, constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty.”
• where allegations focus on pattern of investments and overall strategy, plaintiff must only show that a reasonable investor’s strategy would have profited the plan more than that of the fiduciary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).