According to ERISA § 410, 29 U.S.C § 1110, “any provision of an agreement or instrument that purports to release a trustee from any liability for any liability, obligation or duty. is void with regard to public policy. This article further provides that nothing precludes Here Wells asking the court to declare that state contract law is not provided for with respect to ERISA`s compensation agreements. Therefore, since ERISA expressly considers the existence of certain indemnification agreements, see 29 U.S.C§ 1110, but does not provide a mechanism for their enforcement, it should not prejudge state law enforcement methods. The Court considers that this argument is unfavourable. *716 Such an agreement is valid under ERISA. By annulling Article 410 of certain exculpatory agreements against public policy, ERISA seeks to avoid provisions that circumvent express legal requirements to the detriment of the beneficiaries of the scheme. That is not the case here. Instead, this agreement, which is not even part of the plan itself, requires Bourns that as the plan sponsor does not reimburse the wells of the plan or beneficiaries for certain expenses. As the above analysis makes clear, the issues of (1) whether remuneration agreements are anticipated by ERISA and (2) whether such agreements are nevertheless enforceable under customary federal law were not addressed directly by the Ninth Circle. This precedent leaves “substantial reasons for disagreement” on these issues. The question remains whether the agreement can be applied under ERISA under customary federal law. Although ERISA has discussed the existence of compensation agreements, there is no provision in ERISA that explicitly provides for the application of such agreements. “However, the courts are tasked with formulating a nationally uniform federal law to complement the explicit provisions and general guidelines of ERISA.” Menhorn v.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 738 F.2d 1496, 1500 (9 Cir.1984); see also Castonguay, 984 F.2d to 1523 (where state law is anticipated and ERISA does not contain an explicit rule, “Federal courts must deal with it as a matter of federal common law.”) When federal law enforcement is required, a court must “review ERISA`s legal system and the policy judgments it contains and establish a rule that best suits it.” Castonguay, 984 F.2d to 1523.  The Court notes that the agreement at issue in this case is not contrary to ERISA § 410, 29 U.S.C. § 1110 violates and is therefore enforceable by Wells. This type of agreement, which compensates a Plantretreuer (Wells) through an employer (Bourns), was expressly considered by the DOL as a valid type of compensation agreement under ERISA § 410. See 29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-4, Example (1) (a). In addition, the Agreement does not unduly release Wells from any liability with respect to Wells` actions as PlantRuhänder, but requires That Bourns release Wells from certain liabilities “to the extent permitted by ERISA”. Instead of exempting Wells from its obligations, the agreement shifts its potential liability, which arose as a trustee, in the same way as an insurance company. However, these arguments go all the way to the finish line. The rules of federal common law are subject to the general guidelines and procedures set out in ERISA, but are not limited by the specific wording of the Statute.