Crowhurst

Crowhurst v. California Institute of Technology

Good Law
11 F. App'x 827
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 4, 2001Nos. 99-56386, 99-56680; D.C. Nos. CV-96-05433-RAP(SHx), CV-96-05433-RAP-02California394 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

There is no evidence that Cal-tech’s delay in requesting an aggregate transfer harmed Plan participants. “ERISA holds a trustee hable for a breach of fiduciary duty only to the extent that losses to the plan result from the breach.” Friend v. Samoa, Bank Cal., 35 F.3d 466, 469 (9th Cir.1994); 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (2000). Caltech requested an aggregate *828 transfer on June 19, 1991, and Plan assets invested in MBL were frozen on July 16, 1991. Caltech’s delay, by a few days, did not cause or increase the likelihood of the July 16,1991, freeze.

Caltech did not act imprudently by submitting individual transfer requests and requesting an aggregate transfer after July 1, 1991. Caltech knew that MBL was experiencing difficulties and that New Jersey authorities might freeze withdrawals from MBL at any time. Between June 19, 1991, and July 1, 1991, MBL failed to make the aggregate transfer despite Cal-tech’s repeated requests. MBL never confirmed that the aggregate transfer would take place on July 10, 1991. In lights of these difficulties and uncertainty, it was not unreasonable for pension consultants Foster Higgins to recommend, nor for Cal-tech to elect, to continue to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.