X hits on this document

PDF document

(District of New Jersey D.C. 01-cv-04183) - page 20 / 30

71 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

20 / 30

would be unjustified. The court’s analysis focused on the responsibilities of trustees; the defendants in that case were the trustees and the sponsor of an ERISA-regulated plan. The court simply did not consider whether the fiduciary exception applied with equal force to all ERISA fiduciaries, its broad language notwithstanding.

Since Donovan and Washington Star were decided, many other courts have applied the fiduciary exception to ERISA fiduciaries. Just as the Riggs court recognized that the exception was premised on both the beneficiaries’ right to inspection and their identity as the “real” clients, courts applying the fiduciary exception to ERISA fiduciaries have cited these same rationales. See Mett, 178 F.3d at 1063. These courts also have recognized two types of situations in which the fiduciary exception does not apply. First, under the “liability exception,” a fiduciary, seeking the advice of counsel for its own personal defense in contemplation of adversarial proceedings against its beneficiaries, retains the attorney-client privilege. Mett, 178 F.3d at 1063-64; Riggs, 355 A.2d at 711. Second, under the “settlor exception,” courts distinguish between fiduciary acts and settlor acts, the former being discretionary acts of plan

administration

and

the

latter

involving

the

adoption,

modification, or termination of an employee benefit plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A)(iii); Aetna, 542 U.S. at 220; Lockheed

Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882, 891 (1996).

The fiduciary

exception does not apply to settlor acts because such acts are more akin to those of a non-fiduciary trust settlor than they are to those of a trustee. See Lockheed, 517 U.S. at 891; Bland, 401 F.3d at 787-88.

20

Document info
Document views71
Page views71
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 16:37:20 UTC 2016
Pages30
Paragraphs461
Words7026

Comments