2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-23-2006 

# PN C B a nk N

A v . PPL E lec Ut i l C or p P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-3109

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " PNC B a nk NA v

. PPL Ele c Ut i l C or p " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 844. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/844NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 3109 PN C B A N K , N . A . , as T r us t ee f or t he Tunnel t on M i ni ng C om pany B l ack Lung B enef

i t T r us t on behal f of a nd for t he bene fi t of t he for m er empl oy ees of t he Tunnel t on M i ni ng C om panyM ar i on M i ne v. P P L E L E CT RI C U T I L I T I E S CO RP OR AT I ON, f / k / a P E NNS YL VANI A P OWER & L I GHT CO M P ANY; P E N N S Y L V A N IA M IN E S , L L C , f/k /a P E NNS YL VANI A M I NE S CO RP OR AT I ON, A p p e llan ts A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 01789) D i st ri ct Judg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

A r gued M ay18, 2006 B efore: R E N D E L L and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui t Judg es,

and A C K E R M A N *, D i s t r i ct J udge. ( Fi l ed J une 23, 2006)

* H o n o r a b l e H a r o l d A . A c k e r m a n , S e n i o r D i s t r i c t J u d g e f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f

N e w J e r s e y, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.2

D a v id J. L a u re n t [ ARGUE D] B a b st, C a llan d , C lem e n ts & Z o m n ir T w o G at ew ayC ent er , 8 Fl oor th Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts R o b e rt V . C a m p e d e l [ ARGUE D] M ark A . W il lard E c k e rt, S e a m a n s, C h e rin & M e llo tt 600 G r ant St r eet , 44 Fl oor th Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui t J udge. I. T h is ap p eal arises f

ro m a g ran t o f

su mm ary j u d g m en t ag ain st P P L E lectric U tilities C o rp o ratio n(“P P L ”) an dP en n sylv an ia M in es, L L C (“P A M in es”) (co llectiv ely

“ Appe l l ant s ” ) and i n favor of PNC Bank ( “ PNC” ) . PNC i s Tr us t e e of the Tunne l t on Mi ni ng Com

pany Bl a c k Lung Be ne fi t

Tr us t ( “ Tunne l t on Tr

us t ” ) . On May

31, 2001, PA Mines dem anded a tr

ust dis tr ibution o f “exces s a ss et s” of the Tun nelt on Trust und er se ct ion 5 01 (c )( 21 ) of the Inte rnal Revenu e Cod e. PN C f il ed an act ion f

or decl ar at ory judgm e nt i n the Court

of Comm on Pl e a s for

Al l e ghe ny

County , Pe nns yl vani a , s e e ki ng a d eclaratio nth at th e T u n n elto nT ru st d o es n o t co n tain“ex cess assets” th at canb e u sedto pay for r e t i r e e he a l th c ar e be ne fi t s unde r 26 U. S. C. § 501( c ) ( 21) . PA Mi ne s r e m ove d theA f ter d isc o v e ry , P A M in e s w ith d re w C o u n t II o f th e c o u n ter c laim w ith re g a rd to 1 P N C ’s f e e s . T hough not r eac hi ng t he i s s ue, t he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o not ed t hat i t w as doubt ful 2 t hat fede r al s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on exi s t ed overt he pr opos ed s t at e- l aw br eac h of f id u c ia ry d u ty cl a im . 3 case to f ed eral co u rt an df

ileda tw o -co u n t co u n terclaim f o r (1 ) b reach o f

f idu ciary du ty for fa i l ur e t o pay

the “ e xc e s s a s s e t s ” and ( 2) a l l e ge dl y t aki ng e xc e s s i ve fe e s for a dm i ni s tr at i on of the Tr

us t a s s e t s . PNC fi l e d am ot i on for s um m ary judgm e nt , ar gui ng 1 th at th ere w ere n o “ex cess assets” inth e T u n n elto nT ru st u n d er § 5 0 1 (c)(2 1 ) an d , as a c ons e que nc e , that

PNC ha d not

br e a c he d i t s fi duc i ary

duty by r e fus i ng t o m ake pay m e nt s . The Di s tr i c t

Cour t gr ant e d PNC’ s m ot i on for s umm ary judgm e nt

ba s e d upon it s det er m inat ion that t

he Tu nn el ton T rust

did n ot contai n exces s a ss et s und er § 50 1(c) (21). Aft e r the Di s tr i c t

Court gr ant e d s umm ary

judgm e nt , PA Mi ne s and PPL fi l e d a m ot i on for

l e ave t o am e nd the i r

c ount e r c l a i m . Spe c i fi c a l l y , Appe l l ant s s ought t o am e nd th eir co u n terclaim

to ad da n ew claim

f o r b reach o f

f idu ciary du ty ag ain st P N C o nb eh alf of and f or the benefit

of the form er

em ploy ee s of the Tu nn el ton M ining C om pany ’s Mar i on Mi ne . The Di s tr i c t Court di d not e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o pe rm i t PPL and PA Mines t o am end their

com plai nt, finding that

they la cked st anding to bring their new c l a i m. 2 II. We ex ercise p len ary

rev iew o v er th e D istrict C o u rt’s g ran t o f su mm ary j u d g m en t,4

an da p p l y th e s am e s t an d ar dth e D i s tr i c t C o u rt w a s r e qu i r e dt o a

p p l y. Stratton v. E.I. DuPont De Ne mour s & Co. , 3 6 3 F .3 d2 5 0 , 2 5 3 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 4 ). S u mm ary j u d g m en t is ap p ro p riate if

th ere are n o g enu in e issu es o f m aterial f

act p resen tedan dth e m o v in g p arty is en titledto j u d g m en t as a m atter o f law . F ed . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ; Celo tex Co rp . v. C a trett , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 (1 9 8 6 ). We reso lv e all f actu al d o ub ts an ddraw all reaso n ab le in f eren ces in f av o r o f th e n o n m o v in g p arty . Conos he nt iv . Publ i c Se rv . Ele c . & Gas Co. , 364 F. 3d 13 5, 14 0 (3dCir. 20 04 ). W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ct C our t ' s deni al of l eave t o amend for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Fr as erv. N at i onw i de Mut . I

ns . C o. , 3 5 2 F . 3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); L a k e v . A rn o ld , 2 3 2 F . 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 7 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). III . T h e F ed eral B lackL u n g B en ef its A ct (“B L B A ”), 3 0 U .S .C . § § 9 0 1 , et se q ., ob li gate s c oal m ine operators to prov ide c erta in benefits to thei r e m ploy ee s who ar e stri cken with pn eum ocon iosi s, al so kn ow n as bla ck lung dise as e, du e t o exp osure t o coal dus t dur i ng the i r

e m pl oy m e nt . PA Mi ne s ( an i ndi r e c t s ubs i di ary

of PPL) i s s ubje c t

t o the BLBA. Pr i or

t o Se pt e m

be r 25, 1992, PA Mi ne s owne d and ope r at e d s e ve r a l m i ni ng c om pani e s , one of whi c h wa s the Tunne l t on Mi ni ng Com pany ( “ TMC” ) . Dur i ng the co u rse o f o p eratin g its m in in g co m p an ies, P A M in es p ro v id edB L B A b en ef its f o r its em p lo y ees th ro u g h a B lackL u n g B en ef its T ru st en titledP M C B lackL u n g B en ef it T ru st ( “ PMC Tr

us t ” ) . Cr e at i ng s uc h atr

us t i s one of s e ve r a l opt i ons ava i l abl e t o m i ne o p erato rs u n d er f

ed eral reg u latio n s w h ich seekto secu re th e p ay m en t o f b en ef its as a5

r e s ul t of the l ong- t e rm

nat ur e of bl a c k l ung di s e a s e and the thr e at of i ns ol ve nc y

i n the m in in g b u sin ess. I n 1991, PA Mi ne s de c i de d t o ge t out of the m i ni ng bus i ne s s and e i the r c l os e d or so ldits m in es an dm in in g co m p an ies, b u t rem ain s inex isten ce to satisf y certainp o stc l os i ng l i abi l i t i e s and obl i gat i ons . On Se pt e m be r 25, 1992, a s part

of i t s c oa l m i ni ng divest it ure, PA Mines e nter ed into a Stock Pu rc hase Ag re em ent with M on Vall ey Stee l Co. , I nc . , whe r e i n PA Mi ne s s ol d and Mon Va l l e y pur c ha s e d a l l of the c a

pi t a l s t oc k of TMC. As part

of thi s tr ans a c t i on, PA Mi ne s a gr e e d t o c ont i nue t o pay he a l th and ac ci dent insurance benefits fo r r et ir ee s of T MC pu rs uant to the Coal I ndustr y Reti re e H ealth B en ef

its A ct (co mm o n ly

kn o w nas th e R o ck ef

eller A ct), 2 6 U .S .C . § § 9 7 0 1 , et s e q. As part

of the s a l e of a l l of the s t oc k of TMC t o Mon Va l l e y , TMC e s t abl i s he d the Tu nn el ton T rust

fo r purpo se s of sat is fying its BL BA ob li gati on s t o m iner s who were em ploy ee s of T MC prior t o the sa le and either r et ir ed or continued o n as e m ploy ee s a fter the s a l e and l at e r

r e t i r e d. PNC wa s m a de the tr us t e e for the Tunne l t on Tr

us t . $8, 415, 000 wa s tr ans fe rr e d fr om

the PMC Tr

us t t o the Tunne l t on Tr

us t ba s e d upon al i abi l i ty

s t udy p erf o rm edb y P A M in es’ actu aries, p u rsu an t to th e term s o f b o th th e S to ckP u rch ase A g reem en t an dth e T u n n elto nT ru st A g reem en t. Aft e r the Se pt e m

be r 25, 1992 tr ans a c t i on, Congr e s s am e nde d s e c t i on 501( c ) ( 21) ( e ffe c t i ve Oc t obe r

24, 1992) t o a l l ow the pay m e nt of “ e xc e s s a s s e t s ” fr om

the a s s e t s of b lacklu n g b en ef

it tru sts to em

p lo y ers f o r th e p ay m en t o f accid en t o r h ealth b en ef

it6

p rem iu m s o f

retiredm in ers as requ iredb y th e R o ck ef

eller A ct. TMC, whi c h wa s c har ge d wi th pr oc e s s i ng the BLBA c l a i m s of i t s e m pl oy e e s and r e p l e n i s h i n g th e f

u n d s w h i c h c o m

p r i s e th e a s s e t s o f

th e T u nn e l t o nT r

u s t i f n e c e s s ary, ev en tu ally

term in atedits m in in g o p eratio n s an df iledf o r b an krup tcy

in1 9 9 4 . On or about May 31, 2001, PA Mi ne s de m ande d that PNC, a s Tr

us t e e of the Tu nn el ton T rust , pay

$3 ,157 ,230 of

the Tun nelt on Trust a ss et s t o P A M ines un der s e c t i on 501( c ) ( 21) ( A) ( i ) ( I V) of the I nt e rna l Re ve nue Code for the pur pos e of re im bu rs ing P A M ines fo r pay m ents it had m ade und er

the Rockefell er

Act, with re spec t to no n-blac k lun g h ea lt

h b enefit s for TM C’s andPA Mines’ re ti re d m iner s. PN C refused P A M in es’ requ est o nth e g ro u n d s th at IR C sectio n5 0 1 (c)(2 1 ) o n ly p erm its “ex cess” tr us t a s s e t s t o be us e d for

pay m e nt of s uc h be ne fi t s . PNC c ont e nds that the r e ar e no “ex cess assets” o f

th e T ru st av ailab le to p ay P A M in es’ d em an d . Inlig h t o f

, am o n g o th er th in g s, th e co n tinu in g d em an do f P A M in es f

o r p ay m en t, th e b an krup tcy

o f T M C , an dth e f

act th at n o “E m

p lo y er” ex ists to co n test P A M in es’ de m ands or

t o r e pl e ni s h the a s s e t s of the Tunne l t on Tr us t i n the e ve nt

of de pl e t i on, PNC, a s Tr us t e e of the Tunne l t on Tr us t , br ought

an a c t i on for

de c l ar at ory

judgm e nt

i n the Court of Comm on Pl e a s for

Al l e ghe ny

County , Pe nns yl vani a . On Nove m be r 20, 2003, P A M in es an dP P L rem o v edth e actio nto f ed eral co u rt an df

iledco u n terclaim s ag ain stW e h av e su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n o v er this claim b rou g h t un d er P en n sy lvan ia’s 3 decl ar at or y j udgm ent s t at ut e, and or i gi nal l yi n Penns y l vani a s t at e cour t , pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1331. W e conc l ude t hat PN C ’ s s t at e- l aw act i on gi ves r i s e t o fede r al - ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on beca us e “i t appea r s fr om t he compl ai nt t hat t he r i ght t o r el i ef de pends upon t he cons t r uct i on or appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw . ” G r abl e & Sons Met alP r ods . , I nc. v. D ar ue Eng’g & M

f g. , 125 S. C t . 2363, 2367 ( 2005) ( i nt er nal br acke t s and quot at i on om i t t ed). W e fi nd t hat PN C ’s st at e-l aw declar at oryj ud gm ent act cl ai m rai ses a s ubs t ant i al fede r al ques t i on– t he i nt erpr et at i on of s ect i on 501( c) ( 21) of t he I nt er nal R e v e n u e C o d e – o v e r w h ic h th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl y e x e rc is e d re m o v a l ju ri s d ic tio n . O ur j ur i s di ct i on i s “cons i s t ent w i t h congr es s i onal j udgm ent about t he s ound di vi s i on of l abo r bet w een st at e and fede ral cou rt s gov erni ng t he ap pli cat i on of § 13 31 . " Id . 7 PNC. 3 On Oc t obe r

15, 2004, PNC m ove d for s umm ary judgm e nt . On Fe br

uary 22, 2005, the Di s tr i c t

Court gr ant e d s umm ary

judgm e nt

for PNC, de c l ar i ng that

the r e ar e no ex cess assets o f

th e T u n n elto nT ru st u n d er sectio n5 0 1 (c)(2 1 ) o f th e IR C an dth at P N C is no t r equire d to p ay

any po rt ion o f the Trust’ s a ss et s t o P A M ines or PP L. Th e Dis tr ic t Court a l s o di s m i s s e d the c ount e r c l a i m s a ga i ns t PNC, but

a ffor de d PA Mi ne s and PPL l e ave t o fi l e am ot i on t o am e nd the i r c ount e r c l a i m

t o a dd ac l a i m

unde r fe de r a l l aw for b reach o f f idu ciary du ty . O nM arch 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , P A M in es an dP P L m o v edf o r leav e to f

ile anam en d edco un terclaim . S p ecif ically , A p p ellan ts so u g h t to am en dth eir co u n terclaim t o a dd ane w c l a i m

for br e a c h of fi duc i ary

duty a ga i ns t PNC on be ha l f of and for the benefit of the fo rm er

em ploy ee s of the TM C M ar ion M ine. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt denied PA Mines’ and P PL ’s m otion, find ing that t hey did n ot have st anding to bring this new claim . I V.T h e e x c e ss a ss e t ca lcu latio n re lies o n th e f o llo w in g m a th e m a tica l ca lcu latio n : 4 ( i i ) t he exc es s ( i f any ) of –

( I ) t he s um of a s i m i l ar exce s s det er m i ned as of t he cl os e of t he l as tt axabl e ye arendi ng bef or e t he dat e of

t he enac t m ent of t hi s s ubpar agr aph pl us ear ni ngs t her eon as of t he cl os e of the tax ab le y ea r pre ce d ing the tax ab le y ea r i n v o lved , o v er ( I I ) t he aggr egat e pay m ent s des cr i bed i n s ubpar agr aph (A )(i )(I V ) m ad e f

rom the trust d u ri n g all taxa b le y ea rs b e g in n in g a f

ter th e d a te o f

th e e n a c tm e n t o f

th is s ubpar agr aph. 2 6 U . S . C . § 5 0 1 (c)(21 )(C )(i i) (em p h asis ad d ed ). 8 I n gr ant i ng s umm ary

judgm e nt , the Di s tr i c t

Court fi r s t a ddr e s s e d the narr ow i s s ue of whe the r

the r e we r e any

“ e xc e s s a s s e t s ” i n the Tunne l t on Tr us t unde r s e c t i on 50 1(c) (21)(C)( ii ) andfo un d that there were no t. Th is was bas ed up on it s c on cl usion that beca use the Tu nn el ton T rust ’s firs t t axable y ear did no t e ndun ti l Mar ch 31 , 199 3–m ore th anf iv e m o n th s af

ter th e en actm en t o f

sectio n5 0 1 (c)(2 1 )(C )–th e calcu latio no f “ex cess a s s e t s ” r e s ul t e d i n a

fi nd i ng of no e xc e s s a s s e t s . The Di s tr i c t Court r e a s one d that

the Tunne l t on Tr

us t di d not have any t a xabl e y e ar s e ndi ng p rio r t o the dat e of e na c tm e nt and, thus , c oul d not

have any e xc e s s a s s e t s unde r

the ( C) ( i i ) c a l c ul at i on. Be c aus e the 4 lesser o f th e sectio n5 0 1 (c)(2 1 )(C )(i) an d(ii) am o u n ts is zero , th ere are n o ex cess assets in the Tun nelt on Trust avail able to PA Mines. Th e Dis tric t Cou rt fo un d that PNC was al so enti tl ed to summ ar

y ju dg m ent on P A M ines ’ c ou nter cl ai m fo r bre ac h o f f

iduciary du ty b ecau se th ere co u ldb e n o b reach o f f idu ciary du ty f o r f ailu re to d isb u rse ex cess9

assets sin ce th ere w ere n o “ex cess assets” inth e T u n n elto nT ru st f o r P N C to d isb u rse. A p p ellan ts d o n o t ch allen g e th is calcu latio n , b u t u rg e th at th e T u n n elto nT ru st is not a“ ty pi c a l ” ne w tr

us t for pur pos e s of the Ac t . Unl i ke ty pi c a l tr us t s , the Tunne l t on Trust a ss um ed al l of the PM C T rust ’s as se ts and lia bili ti es with re spec t t o T un nelt on ’s fo rm er em ploy ee s andshou ld be held to be a def ac to co n tinu atio no f

th e P M C T ru st. S o , th ey co n ten d , th e § 5 0 1 (c)(2 1 )(C )(ii) “ex cess assets” calcu latio nsh o u ldb e m ad e w ith ref eren ce to th e statu s o f

assets an dliab ilities inth e P M C T ru st at th e clo se o f th e last t a xabl e y e ar

that e nde d be for e § 501( c ) ( 21) ( C) wa s e na c t e d, 1991. The Di s tr i c t

Court r e je c t e d thi s the ory

and c onc l ude d that

the Tunne l t on Tr

us t and PM C T rust s “ ar e, and alway s have been, s epar at e anddist inct enti ti es .” Dist . Ct. Op . at 13 , a pp . 17. “For exam

ple, ” the Distri ct

Co urt noted, “ ea ch tr

ust has a different t ax identi ficati on nu m

ber, and thu s, ea ch is a s epar at e t axpay er fo r purpo se s of f

eder al tax law . T h e tw o tru sts also h av e d if f eren t tax ab le y ears. T h e S to ckP u rch ase an dT ru st Ag re em ents fu rther i nd ic at e that Defendants i ntended the Tu nn el ton T rust to be a new and separate enti ty .” I

d. (citatio n s o m itted ). T h e D istrict C o u rt co n clu d ed , “T h ere is no thing in sec ti on 50 1(c) (21) or el se wh er e that wou ld even re m otel y sugg es t t hat Congr e s s i nt e nde d the t e rm “ tr us t ” t o i nc l ude any

othe r e nt i ty , e s pe c i a l l y

as e par at e and dist inct taxp ayer such as the [PM C] Trust. Th us, und er the pla in lang uage of

the s tatute , on ly the Tun nelt on Trust i s r el evant. ” I d. W e a dopt the thought ful ana l y s i s of the Di s tr i c t Court and i t s l e ga l c onc l us i on on10

this is sue. We will affirm the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s ruli ng s a s t o b oth P NC ’s decl ar at ory j u d g m en t actio nan dth e o rig in al co u n terclaim s. V. Aft e r the Di s tr i c t

Court gr ant e d PNC’ s m ot i on for s umm ary judgm e nt

and s i m ul t ane ous l y

di s m i s s e d Appe l l ant s ’ or i gi na l c ount e r c l a i m s , Appe l l ant s fi l e d am ot i on f o r leav e to f

ile anam en d edco u n terclaim . Inth eir o rig in al co u n terclaim , A p p ellan ts al le ged b re ac h o f f

iduciary du ty agai nst PNC , a s Trust ee of the Tun nelt on Trust, base d up o nP N C ’s ref

u sal to h an do v er T ru st assets to A p p ellan ts to co v er A p p ellan ts’ liab ilities f

o r n o n -b lacklu n g liab ilities. Wh enth is co u n terclaim w as rej ected , A p p ellan ts so u g h t to am en dth eir co u n terclaim to alleg e th at P N C b reach edits f idu ciary du ty to benefici ar ie s of the Trust by m aking p ay

m ents fo r m edic al tr eatm ents to fo rm er Tunne l t on m i ne r s whi c h Appe l l ant s a l l e ge we r e not r e l at e d t o bl a c k l ung di s e a s e . The Di s tr i c t Court de ni e d thi s m ot i on, fi ndi ng that Appe l l ant s l a c ke d s t andi ng t o br i ng the c l a i m . I t r e a s one d that

Appe l l ant s fa i l e d t o a l l e ge any a c t ua l or thr e at e ne d i njury

fr om P N C ’s alleg edb reach o f

f idu ciary du ty an dh adn o t id en tif

iedan y in terest th ey

h av e in the Tr us t a s s e t s e xc e pt

a s pot e nt i a l r e c i pi e nt s of “ e xc e s s a s s e t s ” for pur pos e s of r e i m bur s i ng the m

for a c c i de nt or he a l th be ne fi t s pa i d for

r e t i r e d m i ne r s . Be c aus e the D istrict C o u rt h adco n clu d edth at th ere w ere n o t–an dco u ldn o t b e–an y su ch ex cess assets inth e T u n n elto nT ru st, it f o u n dth at A p p ellan ts h adn o in terest inth e T ru st assets and cou ld no t be har

m ed by PN C’s a ll eged im

prop er pay m ents . Acc ording ly , the Distri ctT he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o concl uded t hat A ppel l ant s do not have t hi r d- par t y s t andi ng 5 t o pur s ue t hei r pr opos ed br eac h of fi duci ar y dut y cl ai m on behal f of t he Trus t and/ or t he f o rm e r T u n n e lto n m in e rs w h o a re b e n e f icia rie s o f

th e T ru st. 11 Co urt c on cl ud ed, App el lants l ac k A rt ic le II I s tand ing to b ri ng thei r propo se d am ended co u n terclaim . Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt

al so concluded that, even if Ap pell ants could est abli sh an in j u ry th at w o u ldsatisf

y th e co n stitu tio n al stan d in g requ irem en ts, th ey can n o t estab lish p ru d en tial stan d in g . T h e p ru d en tial lim itatio n s “en su re th at o n ly p arties w h o canb est pu rs ue a part ic ular

cl ai m will gain ac ce ss to the c ou rt s. ” O xfo rd A sso cs. v. Wa ste S

ys. A u th . o f E . M o n tg o m ery Co u n ty , 271 F.3d14 0, 14 5 (3dCir. 20 01 ). Here , the Distri ct Court c onc l ude d that

Appe l l ant s we r e not

the be s t part i e s t o r e pr e s e nt

the i nt e r e s t s of the f o rm er m in ers w h o are en titledto B lackL u n g b en ef its. 5 O nap p eal, A p p ellan ts d ev o te o n ly a sin g le p arag rap h (tw o sen ten ces) to th is i s s ue . Appe l l ant s e s s e nt i a l l y c onc e de that , i f we fi nd that the Tunne l t on Tr

us t ha s no “e xces s a ss et s” then they do no t have s tand ing. Ap pell ants ar gu e only “i f this Cou rt rev erses th e D istrict C o u rt o nth e S ectio n5 0 1 (c)(2 1 )(C )(ii) issu e, [ A p p ellan ts] clearly w ill b e p o ten tial b en ef

iciaries o f th e T u n n elto nT ru st an d , th eref o re, w ill h av e stan d in g to co m p lainab o u t P N C ’s w aste o f tru st assets.” A p p ellan ts’ B r. at 2 5 . We f in dn o erro r inth e D istrict C o u rt’s an aly sis an dco n clu d e th at A p p ellan ts, in d eed , lackstan d in g to b rin g th eir p ro p o sedam en d edco u n terclaim . V I.12

Accordingly , for the r ea sons se t forth abov e, we will affirm the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s gr ant of s umm ary

judgm e nt

a s t o both PNC’ s de c l ar at ory judgm e nt

a c t i on and the o rig in al co u n terclaim s. We w ill also af f irm th e D istrict C o u rt’s d en ial o f A p p ellan ts’ m ot i on t o am e nd the i r

c ount e r c l a i m

for l a c k of s t andi ng.