Malachowski v. Bank One, Indianapolis, N.A.

I respectfully dissent because I believe that the Bank’s prudence regarding the decision to diversify and the diversification itself, standing alone, is meaningless when the Bank misrepresented facts to the Plaintiff Beneficiaries in order to effectuate the diversification. While I agree with the majority to the extent that it found that the Bank carried out the diversification in good faith and in full compliance with the prudent investor rule, I am unable to get beyond the fact that the Bank made a misleading communication regarding the mandate. Even assuming diversification was positively…