administrators hire service providers to perform this compliance review. Pursuant to the agreement here, A & P hired Fidelity as a service provider to configure an online method to create a qualified DRO, develop administrative guidelines for determining whether a DRO is qualified, respond to inquiries, and review DROs to determine if they comply with Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code. 2 . Notably, the fee was predetermined, and the amount charged was based on how the participant prepared die DRO. 3 . At the time that Fidelity was collecting the fee under the terms of the Trust Agreement, it was both a fid plan trustee who essentially negotiated on both sides of a mortgage transaction with the plan violated Section 406(b)); Cutaiar v. Marshall, 590 F.2d 523, 530 (3d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Cf. Sixty-Five Sec. Plan v. Blue Cross
recognizing that the two statutes are nearly identical holding that the csu board of trustees and individual trustees sued in their official capacity are a political arm of the state and as such are immune from suit holding that beneficiaries could not sue attorneys of the trust for legal malpractice because beneficiaries are not direct recipients of the attorneys services holding that trial judge is legally correct in dismissing declaratory action when two actions are substantially the same issues were identical and the identical action was still pending holding that a transfer between two funds where the trustees are identical but participants and beneficiaries are not violates section 406b