Blankenship v. Boyle

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a derivative class action brought on behalf of coal miners who have a present or future right to benefits as provided by the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund of 1950. Plaintiffs have qualified under Rule 23.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction is founded on diversity and on the general jurisdiction of this Court, 11 D.C.Code § 521, in effect at the time suit was filed.

Defendants are the Fund and its present and certain past trustees; the United Mine Workers of America; and the National Bank of Washington and a former president of that Bank. 1

Plaintiffs seek substantial equitable relief and compensatory and punitive damages for various alleged breaches of trust and conspiracy. Defendants oppose these claims on the merits and in addition interpose defenses of laches and the statute of limitations. The issues were specified at pretrial conferences, and after extensive discovery the case was tried to the Court without a jury. Following trial, the case was fully argued and detailed briefs were exchanged. This Opinion constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues of liability and equitable relief.

I

BACKGROUND

A. Organization and Purpose of the Welfare Fund.

The Fund was created by the terms of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950, executed at Washington, D. C., March 5, 1950, between the Union and numerous coal operators. It is an irrevocable trust established *1093 pursuant to Section 302(c) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c), and has been continuously in operation with only slight modifications since its creation.

The .Fund is administered by three trustees: one designated by the Union, one designated by the coal operators, and the third a “neutral party designated by the other two.” The Union representative is named Chairman of the Board of Trustees by the terms of the trust. Each trustee, once selected, serves for the term of the Agreement subject only to resignation, death, or an inability or unwillingness to serve. The original trustees named in the Agreement were Charles A. Owen for the Operators, now deceased; John L. Lewis for the Union, now deceased; and Miss Josephine Roche. The present trustees are W. A. (Tony) Boyle, representing the Union; C. W. Davis, representing the Operators; and Roche, who still serves. 2

Each coal operator signatory to the Agreement (there are approximately fifty-five operator signatories) is required to pay a royalty (originally thirty cents, and now forty cents per ton of coal mined) into the Fund. These royalty payments represent in excess of ninety-seven percent of the total receipts of the Fund, the remainder being income from investments. In the year ending June 30, 1968, royalty receipts totalled $163.1 million and investment income totalled $4.7 million. Total benefit expenditures amounted to $152 million.

In general, the purpose of the Fund is to pay various benefits, “from principal or income or both,” to employees of coal operators, their families and dependents. These benefits cover medical and hospital care, pensions, compensation for work-related injuries or illness, death or disability, wage losses, etc. The trustees have considerable discretion to determine the types and levels of benefits that will be recognized. While prior or present membership in the Union is not a prerequisite to receiving welfare payments, more than ninety-five percent of the beneficiaries were or are Union members.

The Fund has maintained a large staff based mainly in Washington, D. C., which carries out the day-to-day work under policies set by the trustees. Roche, the neutral trustee, is also Administrator of the Fund serving at an additional salary in this full-time position. Thomas Ryan, the Fund’s Comptroller, is the senior staff member next in line.

The trustees hold irregular meetings, usually at the Fund’s offices. Formal minutes are prepared and circulated for approval. In the past, a more detailed and revealing record of discussions among the trustees has been prepared and maintained in the files of the Fund by the Fund’s counsel, who attended all meetings. The Fund is regularly audited, and a printed annual report summarizing the audit and other developments was published and widely disseminated to beneficiaries, Union representatives, and coal operators, as well as to interested persons in public life.

From the outset the trustees contemplated that the Fund would operate on a “pay-as-you-go” basis—that is, that the various benefits would be paid out largely from royalty receipts rather than solely from income earned on accumulated capital. Always extremely liquid, the Fund invested some of its growing funds in United States Government securities and purchased certificates of deposit. It also purchased a few public utility common stocks, and in very recent years invested some amounts in tax-free municipal securities. The chart appended as Exhibit A reflects in a general way the growth of the Fund’s assets and its investment history until June 30, 1969.

*1094 From its creation in 1950, the Fund has done all of its banking business with the National Bank of Washington. In fact, for more than twenty years it has been the Bank’s largest customer. When this lawsuit was brought, the Fund had about $28 million in checking accounts and $50 million in time deposits in the Bank. The Bank was at all times owned and controlled by the Union which presently holds 74 percent of the voting stock. Several Union officials serve on the Board of Directors of the Bank, and the Union and many of its locals also carry substantial accounts there. Boyle, President of the Union, is also Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Fund and until recently was a Director of the Bank. 3 Representatives of the Fund have also served as Directors of the Bank, including the Fund’s house counsel and its Comptroller. The Fund occupies office space rented from the Union for a nominal amount, located in close proximity to the Union’s offices.

B. The Responsibilities of the Trustees

The precise duties and obligations of the trustees are not specified in any of the operative documents creating the Fund and are only suggested by the designation of the Fund as an “irrevocable trust.” There appears to have been an initial recognition by the trustees of the implications of this term. Lewis, who was by far the dominant factor in the development and administration of the Fund, stated at Board meetings that neither the Union’s nor the Operators’ representative was responsible to any special interest except that of the beneficiaries. He declared that each trustee should act solely in the best interests of the Fund, that the day-to-day affairs of the Fund were to be kept confidential by the trustees, that minutes were not to be circulated outside the Fund, and that the Fund should be soundly and conservatively managed with the long-term best interests of the beneficiaries as the exclusive objective. While he ignored these strictures on a number of occasions, as will appear, his view is still accepted by counsel for the Fund in this action, who took the position at oral argument that the duties of the trustees are equivalent to the duties of a trustee under a testamentary trust. Counsel stated, “You can’t be just a little bit loyal. Once you are a trustee, you are a trustee, and you cannot consider what is good for the Union, what is good for the operators, what is good for the Bank, anybody but the trust.” (Tr. 2590).

This view, which corresponds with plaintiffs’ position, is not accepted by all parties. While acknowledging that a trustee must be “punctilious,” counsel for some of the parties urge that trustees as representatives of labor or management may properly operate the Fund so as to give their special interests collateral advantages (e. g., managing trust funds so as to increase tonnage of Union-mined coal), and that this is not inconsistent with fiduciary responsibility since such actions ultimately assist beneficiaries by raising royalty income. But there is nothing in the Labor-Management Relations Act or other federal statutes or in their legislative history which can be said to alleviate the otherwise strict common-law fiduciary responsibilities of trustees appointed for employee welfare or pension funds developed by collective bargaining. Indeed, the statute under which the 1950 Fund is organized was designed expressly to isolate such welfare funds from labor-management politics. In Lewis v. Sean or Coal Co., 382 F.2d 437, 442 (3d Cir. 1967), the court indicated that Congress was motivated by the example of the UMWA’s pre-1950 Fund:

This provision was written into the statute because of the special concern of Congress over the welfare fund of the United Mine Workers of America, which already was in existence and *1095 which Senator Taft described as administered without restriction by the union so that “practically the fund became a war chest * * * for the union.”

See also United States v. Ryan, 350 U.S. 299, 304-305, 76 S.Ct. 400, 100 L.Ed. 335 (1956).

It is true that trustees are allowed considerable discretion in administering a trust as large and complex as the Fund. In determining the nature and levels of benefits that will be paid by a welfare fund and the rules governing eligibility for benefits, the trustees must make decisions of major importance to the coal industry as well as to the beneficiaries, and their actions are valid unless arbitrary or capricious. E. g., Roark v. Lewis, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 401 F.2d 425, 426 (1968); Kosty v. Lewis, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 319 F.2d 744, 747 (1963). On these matters, trustee representatives of the Union and the Operators may have honest differences in judgment as to what is best for the beneficiaries. Congress anticipated such differences in enacting § 302(c) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, and sought to temper them by the anticipated neutrality of the third trustee. The congressional scheme was thus designed not to alter, but to reinforce “the most fundamental duty owed by the trustee”: the duty of undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries. 2 Scott on Trusts § 170 (3d ed. 1967). This is the duty to which defendant trustees in this case must be held.

C. Conduct of the Trustees

Before dealing in detail with the specific breaches of trust alleged, a general comment concerning the conduct of the trustees is appropriate to place the instances of alleged misfeasance into proper context. It has already been noted that the trustees did not hold regular meetings but only met subject to the call of the Chairman. There was, accordingly, no set pattern for deciding policy questions, and often matters of considerable import were resolved between meetings by Roche and Lewis without even consulting the Operator trustee.

The Fund’s affairs were dominated by Lewis until his death in 1969. Roche never once disagreed with him. Over a period of years, primarily at Lewis’ urging, the Fund became entangled with Union policies and practices in ways that undermined the independence of the trustees. This resulted in working arrangements between the Fund and the Union that served the Union to the disadvantage of the beneficiaries. Conflicts of interest were openly tolerated and their implications generally ignored. 4 Not only was all the money of the Fund placed in the Union’s Bank without any consideration of alternative banking services and facilities that might be available, but Lewis felt no scruple in recommending that the Fund invest in securities in which the Union and Lewis, as trustee for the Union’s investments, had an interest. Personnel of the Fund went on the Bank’s board without hindrance, thus affiliating themselves with a Union business venture. In short, the Fund proceeded without any clear understanding of the-trustees’ exclusive duty to the beneficiaries, and its affairs were so loosely controlled that abuses, mistakes and inattention to detail occurred.

II

ACCUMULATION OF EXCESSIVE CASH

A. The Breach of Trust

The major breach of trust of which plaintiffs complain is the Fund’s accumulation of excessive amounts of cash. A basic duty of trustees is to invest trust funds so that they will be productive of income. E. g., Barney v. Saun *1096 ders, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 535, 542, 14 L.Ed. 1047 (1853); Spruill v. Ballard, 36 F.Supp. 729, 730 (D.D.C.1941); In re Hubbell’s Will, 302 N.Y. 246, 97 N.E.2d 888, 892 (1951); 2 Scott on Trusts § 181 (3d ed. 1967). It is contended that the trustees failed to invest cash that was available to generate income for the beneficiaries, and in total disregard of their duty allowed large sums to remain in checking accounts at the Bank without interest. It is further claimed that this breach of trust was carried out pursuant to a conspiracy among certain trustees, the Union, and the Bank through its President, and that all these parties are jointly liable for the Fund’s loss of income resulting from the failure to invest.

That enormous cash balances were accumulated and held at the Bank over the twenty-year period is not disputed. The following figures are representative.

Fiscal Year Amount of Cash in Demand Deposits at End of Year Percentage of Cash To the Fund's Total Resources

1951 $29,000,000 29%

1956 30.000. 000 23

1961 14.000. 000 14

1966 50.000. 000 34

1967 75.000. 000 44

1968 70.000. 000 39

1969 32.000. 000 18

The significance of these huge sums has greater import when two factors are considered.

First, not only did the trustees have a duty to invest but the early minutes of the Fund clearly reflect the trustees’ knowledge that income could be earned by investment in Government securities without sacrificing desired liquidity. The safety and practicality of using excess cash in this manner were also fully appreciated. Yet the money remained at the Bank on demand to the Bank’s advantage but earning nothing for the Fund. This practice continued in spite of suggestions from successive Operator trustees that the money should be used to earn income for the beneficiaries.

Second, the Fund could easily have met its obligations with only a fraction of the cash maintained in its checking accounts, as the most cursory examination of its accounts clearly shows. The income and outgo were constant and unusual demands on the Fund could in any event always be anticipated sufficiently to liquidate Government securities should this have been unexpectedly necessary. Over the years the Fund paid out monthly approximately $10 million to $14 million for medical and pension benefits and administrative expenses. Against these obligations the Fund had a predictable steady income in the form of monthly royalty payments which, for each month in the years 1967, 1968 and to the date of the complaint in 1969, always totaled from $10 million to $14 million. In addition, there was regular, predictable investment income in the range of $2 million to $3 million per annum. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1627, appended hereto as Exhibit B, charts the cash which was held in the General, Pension and Administrative checking accounts by month from 1953 to June 1969, and reflects the regularity of the Fund’s income and outgo. It will be immediately noted that cash balances greatly in excess of the Fund’s day-today needs were permitted to accumulate from the outset. Even the formula of having two to two-and-one-half times monthly expenditures in cash, a formula urged by the trustees as appropriate but without apparent justification, was ignored in practice.

The beneficiaries were in no way assisted by these cash accumulations, while the Union and the Bank profited; and in view of the fiduciary obligation to maximize the trust income by prudent investment, the burden of justifying the conduct is clearly on the trustees. Cf. Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 306, 60 S.Ct. 238, 84 L.Ed. 281 (1939).

Three explanations were seriously presented in justification of the cash accumulations: the trustees’ general concern as to the future course of labor relations and other developments in the coal industry which might make it nec *1097 essary to have money readily at hand on short notice; tax factors; and what was characterized as inadvertence or accident. None of these explanations will withstand analysis.

(a) Uncertainty about the future. Prior to 1950, strikes and labor disputes had caused mine shutdowns, placing heavy demands on the then-existing welfare programs. Any repetition of these or similar conditions would have shut off royalty payments, perhaps for a considerable period. While this factor could therefore justify the trustees in maintaining a substantial, highly liquid reserve, it affords no justification for the failure of the trustees to put the large accumulations of excess cash to work for the beneficiaries. Roche testified that she favored maintaining an amount equal to several months’ expenditures in cash, because “that is the only way you can be sure.” Such naivete by a trustee is unacceptable, particularly in light of the trustees’ knowledge that short-term Government securities, which the evidence showed were redeemable on one-half hour notice, for example, were readily available and would have generated substantial income for the Fund while still assuring maximum liquidity.

This reliance on future uncertainty must also be weighed in the light of conditions existing in the coal industry in the latter years of the Fund’s history under review. These were succinctly epitomized by a Union economist at the trial. In brief, it appears that beginning around 1960 the industry was profitable and increasingly stable, with encouraging prospects for the future, all of which was reflected in the increasing amount of coal mined and the favorable progress of the Union in its effort to organize increasing numbers of miners for work at the Union scale. Prosperous conditions made any reoccurrence of the pre-1950 experience far less likely.

(b) Tax considerations. The Fund has from the beginning been competently advised by experienced outside tax counsel. Naturally its return was examined by field audit from time to time. The Fund first sought an exemption from income tax as a charitable trust. This was denied in 1954, after a long delay while the requested ruling was being processed at the Treasury Department. This negative ruling was prospective, and thereafter the Fund understood that it would have to pay taxes on any amount of investment income that exceeded its administrative expenses. In fact, investment income never exceeded administrative expense and indeed was usually well below. In one year the spread was $2.4 million. It was obvious that even if income exceeded expenses and taxes became due on the excess, the Fund would have profited to the extent of its after-tax income.

An additional latent worry was apparently the possibility that royalties would be treated by the Internal Revenue Service as income, which would have been disastrous for the Fund. Tax counsel advised that royalties were not income, and they were so reported. The Internal Revenue Service agents conducting audits seemed interested in the point, but took no action. The Fund never asked for a ruling, preferring to let the Internal Revenue Service make the first move. When the question arose as to another welfare fund, the Anthracite Fund, the IRS eventually ruled that royalties were not income. Significantly, the Fund’s representatives, although familiar with the Anthracite Fund’s problem, were not sufficiently concerned even to inquire as to the final ruling of the IRS in the matter.

Thus none of these tax considerations can justify the trustees’ failure to invest.

(c) Accident or inadvertence. There was no proof to support this desperate theory which the Fund itself does not advance and which in any event is in effect an admission of failure to adhere to minimum fiduciary standards of care and skill in administering the trust. 2 Scott on Trusts § 174 (3d ed. 1967). The Fund’s Comptroller stoutly denies *1098 accident or inadvertence, and the proof shows that the trustee well knew at all times that cash was steadily accumulating.

Under the most charitable view, this accident theory can help to account only for the staggering accumulations of cash in the period 1966 to 1968, when Lewis was in failing health and the trustees met infrequently. However, as is clear from the discussion of the conspiracy aspects of this ease, infra, these accumulations were only an extension of a conscious, longstanding policy of the trustees.

The following testimony by Roche is revealing:

Mr. Lewis felt very strongly, sir, the necessity of having a good deal beyond what we could invest without raising the taxation problem, keeping it very much in a situation where we could get at it at once. He did not feel enthusiastic for a long time over tax-exempt securities such as municipals.

I talked to him frequently about it personally, aside from the general discussions we had. And I finally in ’67-’68 realized how strongly I probably had been mistaken myself on anything that had to do with minute fiscal things. And I said, you know, Tom Ryan we both have the utmost confidence in, and he feels we ought to get some of this money out, make it earn money. Now let’s think again about municipals. And he did * * * And finally he definitely agreed in ’68, he said, Yes, we better go ahead, go ahead.

X- X- X- X- X X-

So it was really a long-delayed decision which really probably, and I know completely from the point of view of a financial expert, that there is no excuse perhaps for it at all. To us who had felt that need, too, but felt these other things so terribly imminent, it is not the brightest chapter that we have, but we did some other things that perhaps made up for it a little bit.

X- X- X- X X X

[T]he fiscal requirements certainly didn’t justify what we had on deposit. I know that perfectly well.

(Transcript pp. 957-60.)

Considering this testimony, and the enormous cash balances which existed in 1966 through 1968, the following excerpt from “A Statement by United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund,” printed in the United Mine Workers Journal on May 1, 1969, in answer to growing criticism of the trustees’ policies, takes on special significance :

The criticism: “Large” bank deposits drawing no interest.

The record: At most times during our existence, our bank balances were not nearly so high as we would like to have them in relation to our monthly expenditures.

In January of 1965 the Trustees made substantial improvements in the benefit programs which had the effect of increasing our expenditures by over $45 million annually. As a consequence, as income permitted, our cash balance was allowed to build up somewhat. Our cash balance on June 30, 1968, was actually no greater in relation to our monthly and annual expenditures than it had been at times in the past when expenditures were at a lower level.

With the conclusion of negotiations for a new three-year contract between the Union and the operators in October, 1968, the potential need for cash reserves has lessened and these balances have been reduced considerably.

This statement was signed by Roche, Ryan, and Welly K. Hopkins, General Counsel of the Fund. It is not only lacking in candor, as was much of Ryan’s testimony at trial, but actually misleads.

The trustees well knew that cash deposits at the Bank were unjustified. *1099 It was a continuous and serious violation of the trustees' fiduciary obligation for them to permit these accumulations of cash to remain uninvested. It remains to be determined whether the Union, the Bank, or certain individual defendants are also responsible for the breach of trust.

B. The Conspiracy as to Cash Deposits.

Plaintiffs contend that the Union and the Bank conspired with the trustees to maintain the excessive cash at the Bank for their respective benefit. On this phase of the ease the applicable law is well established and need here only be briefly summarized.

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful object or to accomplish a lawful object in an unlawful manner. American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946); Edwards v. James Stewart & Co., 82 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 160 F.2d 935, 937 (1947). The gist of a civil conspiracy, however, is not the agreement itself, but the civil wrong alleged to have been done pursuant to the agreement; the allegation of conspiracy bears only upon evidentiary and other formal matters. Edwards v. James Stewart & Co., supra; Ewald v. Lane, 70 App.D.C. 89, 90, 104 F.2d 222, 223 (1939); Martin v. Ebert, 245 Wis. 341, 13 N.W.2d 907, 908 (1944). The civil wrong here is a breach of trust; and it is settled that where a third person “has knowingly assisted the trustee in committing a breach of trust, he is liable for participation in the breach of trust.” 4 Scott on Trusts § 326 (3d ed. 1967); See Jackson v. Smith, 254 U.S. 586, 41 S.Ct. 200, 65 L.Ed. 418 (1921). If the third person’s participation in or inducement of the breach is pursuant to an agreement with one or more of the trustees, he is liable as a conspirator.

That there was opportunity to conspire as to the cash balances cannot be doubted. There is, however, no direct evidence of an agreement, no unguarded admissions of conscious impropriety. Lewis, the dominant actor in these events, is dead and the named individual defendants contest charges of conspiratorial participation. Plaintiffs rely on documents, circumstantial evidence and inference to support the claim.

Despite the denials, there is clear and convincing proof that there was an agreement among Lewis, Roche, and Col-ton made contemporaneously with the creation of the Fund and the Union’s acquisition of a controlling interest in the Bank, to use the Bank as the sole depository of Fund moneys and to maintain large sums in interest-free accounts at the Bank without regard to the Fund’s needs. Late in 1949, Lewis, through an agent, solicited Colton to become president of the Union’s newly acquired Bank. At their second meeting, Lewis discussed with Colton the transfer of both the Union and the Fund accounts from previous depositories to the National Bank of Washington. As early as April 30, 1950, the Fund had over $36 million on deposit in checking accounts at the Bank, and the balance remained near or above this level for more than a year thereafter. Over the next twenty years the trustees’ decision to leave cash in the Bank without interest greatly benefited the Bank and the Union as the Bank’s majority shareholder. At all times these sums well exceeded the immediate cash needs of the Fund, as the previous discussion has shown.

This banking arrangement met strong objection from the Operators’ trustee, Owen, who at a trustees’ meeting as early as August, 1950, demanded that all moneys of the Fund be withdrawn from the National Bank of Washington. He stated:

It is undoubtedly the law that a trustee should not deposit trust funds in a bank which he controls or in which he has a substantial participation, Amongst other criticism, he may cause the dividends upon his stock to be enhanced by the Bank’s use of a *1100 large deposit of his trust’s funds for loan purposes. Also, conflicting interests may arise; or, losses may occur.

The trustees’ minutes through 1950 and 1951 reflect that Lewis and Roche, rather than replying to Owen’s repeated complaints on this score, ignored his protests altogether and Lewis even equivocated as to his interest as a trustee holding bank stock for the Union. 5 In March of 1951, Owen included the Fund’s relationship with the Bank as one of four matters on which he believed his proposals had been rejected, “utterly without justification,” by Lewis and Roche “acting jointly.”

The formal minutes of the Fund reflect practically none of this crucial discussion held at trustee meetings. Mitch, the Fund’s attorney, attended the meetings, however, and thereafter prepared what he designated a stenographic draft of the proceedings based on copious contemporary notes. The stenographic drafts are in evidence. These were reviewed by Roche and possibly others and a truncated, far less informative formal minute was developed. Roche struck out most of the informative detail. No satisfactory explanation was offered as to why this was done, and the inference is unavoidable that Lewis and Roche had a conscious desire to conceal the actual embarrassing discussions that had taken place.

Lewis and Roche chose, without taking legal advice in the face of strong objection to the legality of their actions, to advance the interests of the Union and the Bank in disregard of the paramount interest of the beneficiaries who were entitled to receive the benefit of prudent investment of their funds.

The Union urges that Lewis kept his own conscience, acted solely as a trustee and after 1960, when he became President Emeritus, an honorary position, was wholly removed from any executive authority in the Union’s affairs. Hence, it is claimed, the Union cannot be held responsible for Lewis’ actions, neither prior to nor especially after 1960. This position cannot be squared with the facts. Lewis totally dominated the Union both before 1960 and to a large extent thereafter, especially as to financial matters, including the Fund. Other Union officers knew of Lewis’ actions with regard to the Fund and the Bank, but uttered not a word of protest. While Boyle, in the period after 1960, often suggested that Lewis raise pensions, which would have had the effect of reducing the Fund’s bank balances, neither Boyle nor any other officer sought to break the longstanding practice of retaining Fund moneys in non-interest-bearing checking accounts at the Bank rather than in investments. When the Welfare Fund agreement was renegotiated in 1964, 1966 and 1968, the Union could have designated another representative to act as trustee, had it been unwilling to accept the benefits of the course that Lewis had so obviously set.

The inference is also unavoidable that Lewis made more than a mistake of judgment as a trustee. He acted to benefit the Bank and to enhance its prestige and indirectly the prestige of the Union, not simply to keep money needed by the Fund in a safe place. The minutes show that he knew the large demand deposits were unnecessary for any legitimate purpose of the Fund. Moreover, he was not lacking in financial sophistication. He had been president of a bank himself and the record shows his many financial dealings and the manner in which, as President of the Union, he utilized the considerable financial resources of the Union for the Union’s benefit. The conclusion is clear that Lewis, in concert with Roche, used the Fund’s resources to benefit the Union’s Bank and'to enhance the Union’s economic power in disregard of the paramount and exclusive needs of the bene *1101 ficiaries which he was charged as Chairman of the Board of Trustees to protect.

Lewis acted for the Union when he entered into the conspiracy. 6 A conspiracy once formed is presumed to continue ; to escape continuing liability, a party must affirmatively withdraw from the conspiracy and seek to avoid its effects. See Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 369, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114 (1912); South-East Coal Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 434 F.2d 767, 784 (6th Cir. 1970). The Union did not withdraw from the conspiracy; it had full power to end this breach of trust, yet it knowingly perpetuated the breach and continued to reap the benefits thereof.

Any doubt as to Lewis’ motivation is fully dissipated by other evidence showing respects in which the Fund was used to benefit the Union during Lewis’ chairmanship, to be discussed later. There is no suggestion that Lewis personally benefited, but he allowed his dedication to the Union’s future and penchant for financial manipulation to lead him and through him the Union into conduct that denied the beneficiaries the maximum benefits of the Fund. A finding of conspiracy to maintain excessive cash at the Bank, justifying an award of damages against the Union in favor of the beneficiaries, is required.

The Bank, for its part, contends it played no conscious role in these arrangements and that it merely acted as a responsible banker handling the Fund’s business in accordance with sound conservative banking practice. To be sure, the Bank did not overreach in any manner. It treated the Fund fairly. It performed extensive services for the Fund free of charge. There is no showing that the Bank conducted its business on the premise that the cash would not be summarily withdrawn. It was always highly liquid-—indeed more liquid than other comparable banking institutions. Moreover, it did not receive any pressure from the Union to increase dividends for the Union’s benefit, and dividend levels were in accord with the general parsimony that conservative bankers usually display toward shareholders at dividend time. There is no evidence that the Union or anyone connected with the Fund ever required the Bank to loan money to a friend or associate without adequate security and no such loans were made. Nor did the Bank show any favoritism toward the Union or the Fund contrary to proper banking standards.

While the measure of the benefits the Bank received from this relationship is unclear, and certainly not as monumental as the size of the deposits suggests, the Bank was in a position to make money on the Fund’s large demand deposits and in fact did just that. The deposits enhanced the Bank’s earnings and its prestige and position in the banking community.

It is likely that the initial agreement among the Union (acting through Lewis), Roche, and the Bank (acting through Colton), to maintain trust accounts in a bank substantially owned by a Union whose president was a trustee, and the losses of income to the beneficiaries caused thereby, are sufficient without more to hold the Bank liable in conspiracy for damages under the special circumstances of this case. 7 *1102 This was not the theory on which plaintiffs proceeded, however, and the Court need not make such a finding.

The Bank recognizes, as does the Court, that the above facts, plus a showing of actual knowledge on its part that the funds maintained by the trustees in non-interest-bearing accounts were substantially in excess of the Fund’s need for cash, will render it liable. The Bank vigorously denies that any such actual knowledge may be inferred from the facts established at trial. A review of those facts leads the Court to a contrary conclusion.

The Bank knew, from the time of the 1950 meeting between Lewis and Colton, that the accounts came to the Bank without solicitation at the initiative of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Fund who was also President of the controlling shareholder of the Bank. The Bank knew that these were trust accounts, and from its own extensive experience in acting as trustee knew of the high standards governing the conduct of trustees. The Bank knew the actual dollar amounts in the Fund’s various interest-free accounts, and the percentage of the Fund’s total assets that these accounts represented. The offices of the Bank, the Union, and the Fund were in close physical proximity. There were a number of interlocking relationships among the Union, the Bank, and the Fund throughout the twenty-year period. 8 Colton, the President of the Bank, was well aware of the propensity of the Union to use the Bank for Union objectives, as witnessed by his remarkable personal financial dealings with the Union, the Bank’s loans to coal operators backed by Union collateral, and the unusual financial relationships between the Union and Cyrus Eaton, which the Bank aided.

The Bank strongly urges that it was ignorant of the terms of the trust agreement, the needs of the Fund for liquidity, or the possible tax consequences of enlarging the Fund’s investment income, and hence that it had no way of knowing whether or not the obvious failure of the trustees to invest constituted a breach of trust. 9 Any inquiry into these matters would, of course, have revealed *1103 their total irrelevance to the startling size of the cash deposits continuously maintained by the trustees over almost twenty years. In the face of its full knowledge as to the size of the deposits and the relationship between the Union and the Fund, the Bank could hardly have assumed that the deposits were justified by any such possibilities. Its lack of inquiry into these suspicious matters is only further evidence of the Bank’s awareness of the real reason for the deposit benefits it was receiving year after year.

Never in this entire period, Colton testified, did he ever discuss the Fund’s accounts with anyone, inquire as to the Fund’s needs or plans, or question the propriety of what was taking place. Not even casual inquiries were addressed to the interlocking directors and the nature or future prospects of the account were never mentioned at a single Board meeting. Since the Fund’s business with the Bank accounted for over twenty percent of the Bank’s time deposits and grew to over thirty percent of its demand deposits, this disinterest in the Bank’s principal account is indeed more than remarkable. Perhaps this may be accounted for by incompetence, but Colton did not exhibit this characteristic on the stand. His explanations are unacceptable. In the light of all the facts and circumstances this silence and disinterest buttress the sole inference permissible on the totality of all the facts: that the Bank knowingly accepted and participated in a continuing breach of trust that redounded substantially to its own benefit.

This conclusion draws strong support from the cases which hold that where a bank enters into a transaction with a trustee, with actual or constructive knowledge that the transaction is in breach of the trustee’s fiduciary duty, the bank may be held liable for the resulting loss to the trustee. See, e. g., Union Stock Yards Bank v. Gillespie, 137 U.S. 411, 416, 11 S.Ct. 118, 34 L.Ed. 724 (1890); Anacostia Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 73 U.S.App.D.C. 388, 119 F.2d 455 (1941); American Surety Co. v. First National Bank, 141 F.2d 411 (4th Cir. 1944); Restatement of Restitution § 138 (1937); 4 Scott on Trusts §§ 324 et seq. (3d ed. 1967). It is true, as the Bank suggests, that the Uniform Fiduciaries Act, 21 D.C.Code § 1701 et seq., modifies the law in this jurisdiction to limit a bank’s liability for transactions with a trustee to cases in which the bank has actual knowledge of a breach of trust or knowledge of such facts that its action amounts to bad faith. In Colby v. Riggs National Bank, 67 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 92 F.2d 183 (1937), the Act was construed to require “actual knowledge of misappropriation,” and misappropriation was taken to mean “wrong appropriation, or the use of a fund to