that the dis puted issues were not substantial and material because resolution of the issues involved only application of existing Seventh Circuit law regarding the definition of a fiduciary under ERISA and had discussed breaches of a fiduciary’s duties to new facts. Id. at 210 (“[C]ase law is rich with precedent that can effectively guide the bankruptcy court in determining the ERISA issues in the instant action.... The court has every confidence in the Bankruptcy Court’s abilities to effectively read and apply this case law.”). Likewise, the Sixth Circu 1154 (6th Cir.1988) (stating that misleading communications to plan participants regarding plan administration will support a claim for breach of fiduciary duty); Drennan v. General Motors Corp., 977 F.2d 246 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Bankruptcy Court will be able to
holding that whether attorney complied with fiduciary duty to disclose all material information was question of fact holding that employer breached fiduciary duty to disclose that it was considering allowing employees to participate in benefit plan holding that actions based on breach of fiduciary duty must inure to the benefit of the plan as a whole holding that plan fiduciary is entitled to deferential review if empowered by the plan to construe its terms in order to determine benefit eligibility holding that the employer breached a duty to its employees by allowing their insurance coverage to lapse without giving them reasonable notification of the lapse