of Indian timber.” Id. at 222, 103 S.Ct. at 2971 (quoting White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 145, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2584, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980)). The regulations promulgated under these statutes establish a fiduciary relationship between the United States and the Indians. See Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 224-26, 103 S.Ct. at 2971-73. Thus, the statutes and regulations “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for damages sustained” for breach of fiduciary duty. Id. at 226, 103 S.Ct. at 2972-73; accord Short III, 719 F.2d at 1135. Such a breach of fiduciary duty occurs when funds held in trust are mishandled, which can arise in a number of ways. For example, the funds might be wrongfully disbursed. See, e.g., Short III, 719 F.2d at 1135 (<HOLDING>). Or, the funds might be misappropriated or
holding a plan administrator is a fiduciary under the disposition clause where it wrongfully disbursed the plans funds holding an accountant is a fiduciary under the disposition clause where he wrongfully disbursed the plans funds holding a bank is a fiduciary under the disposition clause where it wrongfully disbursed the plans funds holding on the basis of mitchell ii that the pervasive statutory scheme present here creates an actionable fiduciary duty when the secretary wrongfully distributes timber proceeds in a discriminatory fashion holding that the record here fails to establish the first two elements which the court identified as the duty of care and a breach of that duty and as a result a directed verdict  on the issue of liability was warranted