Opinion ID: 778306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count IV: Aiding and Abetting Fiduciary Duties

Text: 31 In the fourth count of its complaint, Appellant claimed that [a]s an `employer' under ERISA, Twin, Foodtown and Defendant Control Group members are fiduciaries with respect to Union Employees who were Plan participants represented by Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 88. 11 Appellant contends that Defendants jointly and severally aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants by Twin, Foodtown and the Defendant Control Group members, by knowingly and willfully participating in those entities' breach of their fiduciary duties under ERISA. Id. ¶ 89. Although the district court characterized Appellant's fiduciary duty claim in count III of the complaint as a common law claim, it is not possible to understand Appellant's claim of aiding and abetting fiduciary duties in this manner. 32 In this count, Appellant's claim is that Twin and Foodtown breached fiduciary duties owed under ERISA. In order to acquire fiduciary status under ERISA, the party must (1) be named as a fiduciary in the instrument establishing the plan; (2) named as a fiduciary pursuant to a procedure specified in a plan instrument; or (3) fall within the statutory definition of fiduciary. Glaziers & Glassworkers v. Newbridge Sec., 93 F.3d 1171, 1179 (3d Cir. 1996). Section 1002(21)(A) provides that 33 a person is a fiduciary with respect to a [pension] plan to the extent (i) he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets, (ii) he renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any monies or other property of such plan, or has any authority or responsibility to do so, or (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of the plan.... 34 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). In order to be found liable for aiding and abetting a breach of a fiduciary duty, one must demonstrate that the party knew that the other's conduct constituted a breach of a fiduciary duty and gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the other in committing that breach. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Spagnoli, 811 F.Supp. 1005, 1014 (D.N.J.1993). 35 Here, the only fiduciary named in the collective bargaining agreements is the Appellant. There are no allegations that Twin or Foodtown had a role in the management and investment of the Fund's assets. Moreover, Twin and Foodtown are not automatically fiduciaries pursuant to ERISA, as amended by the MPPAA, even if they are employers. See Hozier v. Midwest Fasteners, Inc., 908 F.2d 1155, 1158 (3d Cir.1990) (Fiduciary duties under ERISA attach not just to particular persons, but to particular persons performing particular functions. Thus, when employers themselves serve as plan administrators they assume fiduciary status only when and to the extent that they function in their capacity as plan administrators.) (internal quotations omitted). Appellant argues that Appellees knowingly and willfully participat[ed] in [Twin and Foodtown's] breach of their fiduciary duties under ERISA, but Appellant has not alleged any basis upon which Twin and Foodtown owe fiduciary duties under ERISA. Therefore, this count must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.