Opinion ID: 6934825
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Identification of fiduciaries

Text: 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) provides in pertinent part: [A] person is a fiduciary with respect to a 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 moneys 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 such plan. ERISA contemplates the existence of both named and unnamed fiduciaries. A “named fiduciary” is “a fiduciary who is named in the plan instrument, or who ... is identified as a fiduciary (A) by a person who is an employer or employee organization with respect to the plan or (B) by such an employer and such an employee organization acting jointly.” 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(2). Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to the identification of the defendants as fiduciaries are found at paragraphs 34 through 40 of the complaint. Plaintiffs’ App. at 416-18, ¶¶ 34-40. Plaintiffs allege that Greenhalgh and Cook were “named fiduciaries” and that Greenhalgh, Cook, and Ames were all three “fiduciaries” because they “exercised discretionary authority or control with respect to the management of EMTP.” Id. at ¶¶ 35(b) & (c), and 40. Plaintiffs also allege that the EMTP Plan Review Committee and all its members were both “named fiduciaries” and “fiduciaries.” Id. at ¶36. We must accept these allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. So doing, we find plaintiffs’ allegations of defendants’ fiduciary status sufficient.