as directors of the corporation. See Friend v. Sanwa Bank Cal., 35 F.3d 466, 468-69 (9th Cir.1994); Donovan v. Bierwirth, 680 F.2d 263, 271 (2d Cir.1982). Conflicts of interest created by these dual roles can lead to violations of ERISA’s loyalty requirements. Pilkington PLC v. Perelman, 72 F.3d 1396, 1401-02 (9th Cir.1995). We have stressed that where such conflicts arise, “decisions must be made with an eye single to the interests of the participants and beneficiaries.” Id. at 1402 (quoting Donovan, 680 F.2d at 271). Furthermore, “fiduciaries may need to step aside, at least temporarily, from the management of assets where they face potentially conflicting interests.” Id. at 1402 (quoting Leigh v. Engle, 727 F.2d 113, 125 (7th Cir.1984)); see also Waller, 32 F.3d at 1341-44(<HOLDING>). The bankruptcy court found “that there are
holding that plaintiff stated an erisa claim for breach of fiduciary duty where it alleged fiduciary imprudently based the choice of an annuity provider on the size of a potential reversion holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty 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 plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action