## Facts

- Abbey E. Blatt worked for an accounting firm from 1968, became a partner in 1977, and left the firm on October 3, 1983.
- The firm participated in a multi-employer retirement plan sponsored by a professional association, administered by a retirement committee, and insured by a life insurer.
- The firm made plan-related elections for its employees (including contribution methods, eligibility requirements, and a minimum contribution provision) and maintained employee records affecting benefits.
- By the time Blatt left the firm, his retirement benefits under the plan were fully vested.
- After Blatt’s departure, the firm was required to execute and transmit a “Notice of Change” so Blatt could be recognized as a separated participant and elect how his vested assets would be handled.
- Blatt repeatedly requested execution of the Notice of Change, but the firm did not sign it until May 17, 1985—more than 18 months after his departure and after he filed suit.
- Blatt alleged the delay prevented timely elections regarding his vested retirement assets and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.

## Issues

1. Whether the firm and its partners were ERISA fiduciaries under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) with respect to executing the Notice of Change affecting Blatt’s vested benefits.
2. Whether delaying execution of the Notice of Change constituted an exercise of authority or control over plan asset management or disposition sufficient to support fiduciary-liability for breach.

## Decision

- The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the firm and its partners were ERISA fiduciaries for this function because their conduct affected the timing and manner of disposition of Blatt’s vested plan assets.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Blatt.

## Legal Principles

- ERISA fiduciary status is functional: a person is a fiduciary to the extent they exercise authority or control over plan management or plan asset management or disposition, or have discretionary authority in plan administration. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A).
- More than one entity may be an ERISA fiduciary; an employer can be a fiduciary for specific tasks even if another entity is the plan’s formal administrator or insurer.
- An employer’s refusal or prolonged delay in completing a required step that enables a participant to direct or receive vested benefits can constitute control over plan assets and support liability for breach of fiduciary duty.

## Conclusion

The court treated the employer’s delayed execution of required separation paperwork as an act affecting disposition of vested benefits, making the employer and its partners ERISA fiduciaries for that function and requiring judgment for the participant.


Blatt v. Marshall & Lassman, 812 F.2d 810 (2d Cir. 1987)