Opinion ID: 821419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Count Four: Conflicts of Interest

Text: The District Court held that plaintiffs’ conflict of interest claim was “essentially a rehashing of their duty of prudence and duty of candor claims,” and noted that “[t]o the extent [it] could be construed as an independent cause of action, it still fails to state a claim.” In re UBS AG ERISA Litig., No. 08 Civ. 6696, 2011 WL 1344734, at  (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2011). We agree, and hold that the conflict of interest claim is not adequately alleged as to either the SIP or the Plus Plan. The SCAC does not adequately allege anything beyond that (1) the alleged fiduciaries of each plan were corporate officers and directors, and (2) this fact led those 8 fiduciaries to place their own interests “above” those of the plans and their participants. The SCAC is devoid of any particularized allegations as to how such prioritizing took place or on what basis it occurred. An alleged ERISA fiduciary’s mere officer or director status, taken alone, is insufficient to state a claim for conflict of interest. See In re Citigroup ERISA Litig., 662 F.3d at 145-46 (“Under plaintiffs’ reasoning, almost no corporate manager could ever serve as a fiduciary of his company’s Plan. There is simply no evidence that Congress intended such a severe interpretation of the duty of loyalty.”). The District Court therefore did not err in dismissing this claim. V. Counts Three, Five, and Six: Secondary Liability The District Court held that plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim for primary liability under ERISA was fatal to their three claims for secondary liability as well. As to the Plus Plan, we agree.2 See id. at 145 (noting that secondary liability claims under ERISA “cannot stand if plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief on [any primary liability theory]”). Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Counts 3, 5, and 6 as to the Plus Plan.