As to the district court’s conclusion that Rodrigues is liable under 29 U.S.C. § 1105 for enabling Hewitt to breach his fiduciary duties, Rodrigues’s only argument on appeal is derivative of the district court’s allegedly erroneous determination that Rodrigues breached his own fiduciary duties. Because we determine that the district court correctly concluded that Rodrigues breached his duties to the MAF, this argument fails.

De Costa v. Rodrigues, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11398 (9th Cir. Haw. May 28, 2009) (unpublished)

This recent Ninth Circuit opinion provides a textbook example of imposition of fiduciary liability based upon imprudent investments. The presentation of the issue is facilitated by the complete absence of any due diligence by the defendant.