Admittedly, this interpretation makes it difficult to imagine a situation in which a Defendant may have violated ERISA’s duty of disclosure but still find refuge in the 404(c) safe harbor. Cf. Hecker, 556 F.3d at 585-90 (applying section 404(c) after concluding that fiduciaries did not violated any disclosure duties imposed by ERISA). The court nevertheless concludes that this is the most appropriate reading of the regulation, and that this overlap is preferable to creating a separate set of disclosure duties that ERISA fiduciaries would have to consider in the 404(c) context in addition to the disclosure duties already established by the case law interpreting ERISA’s fiduciary obligations. Cf. Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 506, 116 S.Ct. 1065, 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Notably, this interpretation of section
holding that under certain conditions a bank assumes a duty to disclose facts material to a transaction holding that real estate agents owe their  clients a duty of loyalty holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries holding that the substantial relationship test also concerns the duty of loyalty to a former client recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client