("Statutory trusts are not express ... trusts. Trusts created by statute are ... created in law, regardless of the intentions of the parties. A statute alone cannot, in the absence of the parties’ expressed intention, create an express ... trust.”). At least in the context of § 523(a)(4), however, there is authority to the contrary. See In re Bennett, 989 F.2d 779, 784-85, amended, No. 91-1059, 1993 WL 268299 (5th Cir. July 15, 1993) ("Most courts today ... recognize that [§ 523(a)(4)'s] ... 'express' trust requirement is not limited to trusts that arise by virtue of a formal trust agreement, but includes relationships in which trust-type obligations are imposed pursuant to statute or common law ."). See also In re Interstate Agency, Inc., 760 F.2d 121, 124 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Johnson, 691 F.2d 249, 252 (6th
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 an attorney is a fiduciary under section 523a4 holding that for purposes of  523a4 no fiduciary relationship existed between a lotteryticket vendor and the state notwithstanding a state statute declaring that proceeds from the sale of such tickets were held in trust holding a duty of care without more insufficient to satisfy the fiduciary relationship element of  523a4 the federal courts adopting this narrow interpretation of fiduciary for purposes of the bankruptcy code gen erally hold that an express or technical trust is necessary to trigger the defalcation provision of  523a4