denying motion to vacate judgment). It is not clear what effect direct court involvement (rather than phone calls from defense counsel) would have had on the PBGC's willingness to litigate the suit. In any event, neither the realignment issue, nor the PBGC’s proper role as Plan trustee, were ever fully addressed by the court. 7 . The issue of what parties are empowered to bring section 409 actions has divided the circuits. Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet held that a plan may bring such an action, it has ruled that the statutory list is not exclusive. Fentron Indus. v. Nat’l Shopmen Pens. Fund, 674 F.2d 1300, 1305 (9th Cir.1982) (“There is nothing in the legislative history [of section 502] to suggest ... that the list of parties empowered to sue under this section is exclusive") (<HOLDING>). The other circuits which have considered the
holding that employers have standing to sue holding that a minor does not have standing to sue because he is not the biological child of the deceased holding that an incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act