Trust Law Meets Statutory Interpretation

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Interesting post. I know just about nothing about the law of trusts, so my question is more of a plain reading question of logic.

    p has money in plan P. F’s breach of duty (seems to be assumed here) causes p to lose 150K. Thus, if p’ = p-150, then P’ =P – 150. In other words, loss to participant = loss to plan, and the fact that the breach here is allocated to only one account versus a more general breach that would be allocated to all accounts (or maybe just some of them, who happen to hold stock X or bond Y) is beside the point.

    Am I missing the boat here? It seems like even the plain language folks would have to grant relief.

  2. Anita Krishnakumar says:

    That certainly is a fair reading; I’d agree with you, and yours is the reading for which the United States as amicus and LaRue as Petitioner pressed. But there has been disagreement on this point, and the Fourth Circuit ruled that a loss of that kind to an individual account did not constitute a loss to the plan.