Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): responsibility for managing LES during the ARS freeze was transferred to the LFG Board of Directors, there are insufficient facts currently in the record to support this contention. Whether any such abdication occurred is a factual matter that cannot be resolved by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The LFG Trustee has properly stated a claim for the breach of fiduciary duty against the LES Directors under Maryland law. Claims Against the LES Officers In Maryland, officers as well as directors are fiduciaries of a corporation and owe fiduciary duties accordingly. Shenker v. Laureate Educ., 411 Md. 317, 983 A.2d 408, 419 (2009) (stating that the duties owed by officers of a corporation are set forth in § 2-405.1(a)). See also Gantler v. Stephens, 965 A.2d 695, 708-09 (Del.2009) (<HOLDING>). Officers are also subject to general agency 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the policy names only the directors or officers as insured the proceeds are not property of the estate (B) holding that causes of actions against directors of corporations for breach of fiduciary duty are contract actions (C) holding that a breach of duties that a fiduciary contractually assumes beyond those duties imposed by law is considered to arise out of contract (D) holding that under delaware law the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors (E) holding that directors and officers are fiduciaries
Output (English): holding that causes of actions against directors of corporations for breach of fiduciary duty are contract actions