trustee is subject to an absolute fiduciary duty to act solely in the interests of its beneficiaries in all circumstances, Title IV explicitly qualifies the termination trustee’s duty by making it subject to the necessities of terminating the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1342(d)(3). In addition, PBGC, when acting as trustee, is authorized to take actions, such as commingling the assets of the plans it administers as trustee, id. § 1342(a), that would almost certainly be per se breaches of fiduciary duty if done by traditional trustee. At the same time, Title IV nowhere provides that PBGC must separate its functions or maintain separate bureaucracies when it chooses to serve as trustee for a terminated plan. Cf. Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 225, 120 S.Ct. 2143, 147 L.Ed.2d 164 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Congress specifically authorized a single
holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding that as to title i fiduciaries erisa  requires  that the fiduciary with two hats wear only one at a time and wear the fiduciary hat when making fiduciary decisions holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4 holding general fiduciary duties of confidence trust loyalty and good faith insufficient to establish the necessary fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4 holding that when employers serve as plan administrators they assume the role of fiduciary under erisa