Resolving the Passive Custodian Paradox

When the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme manifested devastating investor losses, causation litigation besieged the federal courts. Self-directed IRA account holders ran to the courthouse steps, blaming trustees and custodians for their losses.

Uniformly, the federal courts rejected all self-directed IRA account holder claims. The courts consistently held Section 408 did not create a federal common law cause of action, concluding IRA account holder claims were not afforded ERISA protections. Moreover, the courts rejected state law claims that adhesion contract exculpatory clauses should be set aside on public policy grounds. These cases demonstrated the power of “passive custodian” protections.

However, such passive custodian judicial safe harbors create a paradox. How can it be that a passive custodian derives earnings from protected retirement plan assets, while its superior specialized knowledge remains deliberately ignorant about Congress’ Section 4975 impounded risk diversification policy mandate? The short answer is that extant judicial passive custodian protections are an illusion. This webcast resolves the passive custodian paradox by showing self-directed IRA account holders how to properly bring a claim against the custodian under ERISA Section 502(a)(2), notwithstanding adhesion contract exculpatory clauses.

Syllabus

Lesson 1.

Introduction

Lesson 2.

Self-Directed IRA Litigation Lessons

Lesson 3.

Sec. 4975 Contextual Qualification

Lesson 4. 

Sec. 4975 Risk Diversification

Lesson 5.

Custodial Liability Exposures          

Lesson 6. 

Custodial Liability Management

Lesson 7. 

Conclusion

**This course is approved by the IRS. The submission of a completed request form, found under the materials tab, is required for credit. Please send completed form to leighanne.conroy@acpen.com.

Basic Course Information

*Recognize how self-directed fiduciaries, custodians, and administrators correctly comply with Congress’s Section 4975 impounded management and investment risk diversification policy requirements  

*Correctly recognize how the five deadly sins and three punishments derived from self-directed fiduciary, custodian, or administrator duty to assure non-discretionary Section 4975 impounded management and investment risk diversification policy compliance results in strict liability and do not require Dura disaggregation  

*Recognize the correct policies, procedures, and practices self-directed retirement plan fiduciaries, custodians, and administrators necessary to achieve Section 4975 impounded management and investment risk diversification policy compliance

*Self-directed IRA account holder Bernie Madoff litigation strategy errors  

*Section 4975 contextual qualification of ERISA  

*Implications of Section 408 impounding the totality of Section 4975 without limitation or qualification  

*Section 4975 impounded management and investment risk diversification policy compliance requirements  

*The Five Deadly Sins causing self-directed retirement plan fiduciary, custodian, or administrator strict liability  

*The Three Punishments imposed on self-directed fiduciaries, custodians, or administrators for failing to assure Section 4975 impounded management and investment risk diversification policy compliance  

*Self-directed fiduciary, custodian, or administrator polices, procedures, and practices necessary to assure Section 4975 impounded management and investment risk diversification policy compliance