Spear v. Fenkell
Decision Date | 30 September 2016 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2391 |
Parties | SPEAR, et al. v. FENKELL, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM
Contents
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................... 7 a. The parties. ..................................................................................................................................... 7
b. The Spread Transactions. ........................................................................................................... 8
c. The Stonehenge/DBF Consulting Agreement. ................................................................... 12
d. Alliance's advisory services agreement with SLMRS. ...................................................... 15
e. Fenkell's termination, the internal investigation, and litigation. ................................. 16
f. AH III payments to Stonehenge, and the plan assets issue. .......................................... 18
II. ALLIANCE AND FENKELL .................................................................................... 19 a. The standard of review. ............................................................................................................ 19
b. Fenkell's receipt of fees from Stonehenge, through DBF, violated ERISA § 406(b)(3) as a matter of law. ....................................................................................................... 20
c. Negotiating and accepting the $4,000,000 in fees from Stonehenge violated Mr. Fenkell's fiduciary duty of loyalty under ERISA § 404(a)(1)(A) as a matter of law. ............................................................................................................................... 32
d. Fenkell's use of plan assets to generate the DBF fees violated 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(D) as a matter of law. .................................................................................................... 34
e. Fenkell's dealing with plan assets in his own interest and for his own account violated 29 U.S.C. § 1106(b)(1) as a matter of law. ................................................... 35
f. Mr. Fenkell's defenses preclude entry of partial summary judgment for either party with respect to the DBF fees. ................................................................................... 36
g. ERISA provides an equitable remedy against DBF Consulting, as well as Fenkell. .................................................................................................................................................. 41
h. Stonehenge arguments. ............................................................................................................ 42
i. Alliance's motion concerning counterclaims and third-party claims. ........................ 42
j. Theories of liability that depend upon a determination that Alliance's assets were "plan assets" are not ripe for summary judgment. ............................................ 50
k. Fenkell's motions against the Alliance Parties. ................................................................. 51
III. ALLIANCE AND STONEHENGE ........................................................................... 57
a. Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief. ....................................................................................... 57
b. Questions of fact exist whether Stonehenge is liable as a gratuitous transferee of plan assets under Alliance's fifth claim for relief. ............................................................... 80
c. Whether Alliance and AH III...
To continue reading
Request your trial