Breach of Fiduciary Duty Elements: Federal Liability Rules

Federal fiduciary liability begins with determining whether the defendant owed a statutory duty. Fiduciary status depends on the applicable law rather than a person's corporate title.

Two questions guide this analysis:

• Fiduciary status: Did the person owe a statutory fiduciary duty?
• Scope of duty: What conduct did the law require or prohibit?

The alleged misconduct must fall within the scope of the defendant's fiduciary responsibilities.

A claimant must establish conduct that violated the applicable fiduciary standard. The remaining requirements depend on the remedy sought:

• Breach: Did the defendant violate a statutory duty?
• Causation and relief: Must the claimant prove financial loss, improper gain, or another statutory condition?

Civil claims generally require proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Some securities violations require scienter, but not every SEC enforcement claim requires financial loss.

ERISA determines fiduciary status by function rather than title. A person may qualify through discretionary authority over plan management, control of plan assets, qualifying investment advice for a fee, or discretionary responsibility for plan administration.

Corporate officers are not automatically ERISA fiduciaries. The challenged conduct must involve responsibilities covered by the statute, rather than ordinary corporate management decisions.

Potential breaches include imprudent investment selection, inadequate fee monitoring, misuse of plan assets, and prohibited transactions.

Courts examine the fiduciary's decision-making process rather than investment performance alone. Neither investment losses nor high fees automatically establish imprudence.

Committee minutes, investment comparisons, and monitoring records may demonstrate whether fiduciaries reasonably evaluated costs, risks, and available alternatives.

ERISA Section 409 permits recovery of plan losses resulting from a fiduciary breach and profits obtained through improper use of plan assets.

Claims seeking plan-loss compensation require a causal connection between the breach and the loss. Other remedies, including fiduciary removal, may involve different requirements.

Functional Fiduciary Status → Breach of Duty → Actionable Plan Losses or Other Relief

Investment advisers must provide advice in a client's best interest within the scope of the advisory relationship.

Relevant obligations may include:

• Understanding the client's investment objectives and financial circumstances.
• Evaluating investment risks and reasonable alternatives.
• Providing advice consistent with the agreed services.
• Monitoring investments when the relationship requires ongoing oversight.

The applicable standard depends on the services undertaken and the circumstances of the advice.

Advisers must not place their interests ahead of clients' interests. Material conflicts generally require elimination or full and fair disclosure sufficient for informed consent.

Compensation incentives, financial relationships, and conflicts involving recommended investments may require particular scrutiny.

Inadequate disclosure of material conflicts can support SEC enforcement even without proof of investor losses.

Section 206(1) requires scienter, while negligence can support liability under Section 206(2).

The SEC therefore need not prove intentional misconduct in every investment adviser enforcement action. Investor financial losses are also unnecessary for certain claims.

The applicable provision determines the required mental state and available remedies.

SEC enforcement authority does not automatically create a private damages remedy.

In Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. .. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (1979), the Supreme Court held that Section 206 creates no private damages action. It recognized a limited remedy concerning unlawful advisory contracts under Section 215.

Investors seeking compensation must identify another valid federal or state-law basis for their claims.

ERISA Section 409 authorizes personal liability for plan losses caused by a fiduciary breach and requires restoration of profits made through improper use of plan assets.

Recovery depends on the violation, applicable causation requirements, and relief sought.

Federal securities laws authorize disgorgement, civil penalties, and injunctions.

In Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), the Supreme Court limited the equitable disgorgement at issue to net profits awarded for victims. Congress subsequently authorized statutory disgorgement.

Civil penalties and injunctions involve separate legal requirements.

Executive compensation clawbacks follow rules separate from general fiduciary liability.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 304 addresses certain CEO and CFO compensation following misconduct-related financial restatements.

Exchange Act Rule 10D-1 requires listed companies to adopt policies recovering erroneously awarded incentive compensation after qualifying restatements, generally without proving personal fault.

Neither provision applies automatically to every fiduciary breach.

Evidence in a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit depends on the governing law and the alleged misconduct. Relevant records may include:

• Plan documents and committee charters: Establish fiduciary authority and responsibilities.
• Board minutes, emails, and investment analyses: Document the decision-making process.
• Advisory agreements and conflict disclosures: Define client relationships and disclosed conflicts.
• Transaction and compensation records: Help establish financial losses, gains, and potential conflicts.

Evidence of assigned responsibilities alone does not necessarily establish a breach. The records must support the elements required by the governing statute.

Defendants may dispute fiduciary status, the scope of their duties, or whether their conduct violated the applicable standard.

Other defenses may address prudent decision-making, adequate conflict disclosures, or the absence of causation when financial losses must be proved.

Good-faith reliance on professional advice may be relevant but does not automatically defeat a statutory claim.

Relevant communications, financial records, and investment analyses should be preserved when litigation is reasonably anticipated.

Parties should also assess privilege before disclosing investigation materials to regulators, as voluntary disclosure may waive applicable protections.

Proper preservation and privilege management can materially affect subsequent litigation.