Opinion ID: 3018799
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duties

Text: 26 Proof of a breach of fiduciary duty is required to maintain a claim of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. Toles v. Toles, 113 S.W.3d 899, 917 (Tex. App. 2003); Kline v. O'Quinn, 874 S.W.2d 776, 786-87 (Tex. App.1994); State v. Galloway, 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 4861,  (Ohio Ct. App. 2005); Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co., 700 N.E.2d 859, 868 (Ohio 1998); State Bd. of Med. Educ. & Licensure v. Ferry, 94 A.2d 121, 123 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1953). Indiana does not appear to recognize civil aiding and abetting; that term is used only in Indiana criminal law. Comm’r v. RLG, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 556, 560-561 (Ind. 2001). States vary on whether damages are required for such a claim. Pennsylvania appears not to have such a requirement. Thompson v. Glenmede Trust Co., 1993 WL 197031 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty does not require actual harm); but see Koken v. Steinberg, 825 A.2d 723, 732 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003) (hesitantly adopting Thompson). Similarly, Texas only requires an underlying breach of fiduciary duty, Toles, 113 S.W.3d at 917, which does not require actual injury. Burrow, 997 S.W.2d at 240. Ohio, however, appears to require an injury. Williams, 700 N.E.2d at 868 (approving of the discussion in Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (injury required for aiding and abetting claim). Accordingly, there is a true conflict of laws between Texas and Pennsylvania on the one hand and Ohio (and Indiana) on the other as to aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.