BUGIELSKI V. AT&T SERVICES, INC. 23
recordkeeper was a “party in interest” and that the
transaction at issue fit within the terms of § 406(a)(1)(C), the
Third Circuit “decline[d]” to apply the text of § 406, opting
instead to create an intent requirement that the statute does
not demand. Sweda, 923 F.3d at 336–37, 339. We believe
our reading is more faithful to the text of § 406(a)(1)(C),
which does not include any intent requirement. See, e.g.,
Lauderdale v. NFP Retirement, Inc., No. SACV 21-301 JVS
(KESx), 2022 WL 422831, at *20 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2022)
(stating, while referencing Sweda, that the court was “not
inclined to impose an intent requirement that is not in the
text of the statute”).
Additionally, while the court noted that it seemed
“improbable” that Congress intended to prohibit “ubiquitous
service transactions,” Sweda, 923 F.3d at 336, it did not
consider EBSA’s reasoning for amending § 408(b)(2)’s
implementing regulation, which contemplates these very
service transactions and confirms they are prohibited under
§ 406. See Reasonable Contract or Arrangement Under
Section 408(b)(2)—Fee Disclosure, 77 Fed. Reg. at 5632
(“[A] service relationship between a plan and a service
provider would constitute a prohibited transaction, because
any person providing services to the plan is defined by
ERISA to be a ‘party in interest’ to the plan.”).
Moreover, in refusing to adopt “a per se rule,” Sweda,
923 F.3d at 337, the court overlooked that the Supreme Court
had already recognized that § 406 creates a per se rule.
Harris Tr. & Sav. Bank, 530 U.S. at 241–42 (“Congress
enacted ERISA § 406(a)(1), which supplements the
fiduciary’s general duty of loyalty to the plan’s beneficiaries,
§ 404(a), by categorically barring certain transactions
deemed ‘likely to injure the pension plan.’” (emphasis
added) (citation omitted)); see also id. at 252 (noting that