UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Aliberti, 133 N.E.3d 277

Patrick Kenney opened three nondiscretionary IRAs at UBS (one large ~ $276k, two smaller) and named Donna Aliberti as sole or primary beneficiary.
In 2013 Kenney attempted to change beneficiaries on the two smaller IRAs with defective forms; UBS did not process those forms and received no change for the larger IRA. Kenney died December 2, 2013.
After Kenney's death UBS received a letter from a third party (Gillespie) claiming beneficiary status for at least one IRA; UBS marked the large IRA "disputed," froze it, and declined distribution absent court order or withdrawal of the claim.
UBS liquidated and distributed the smaller IRAs among four persons; Aliberti repeatedly sought information and distributions for the large IRA, retained counsel, served a subpoena, and sent a G. L. c. 93A demand; UBS delayed and later filed an interpleader action.
Aliberti counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of G. L. c. 93A, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the Superior Court granted UBS's motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all counts; the Appeals Court reversed on most counts; the SJC reviewed fiduciary duty and c. 93A claims.
The SJC held that a nondiscretionary IRA custodian does not owe a fiduciary duty to a named beneficiary under the facts alleged, but that the alleged conduct plausibly violated G. L. c. 93A and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UBS, as custodian of nondiscretionary IRAs, owed a fiduciary duty to beneficiary Aliberti	Aliberti: IRAs are "trusts" under federal law and UBS's control over assets and postmortem transfer duties created a fiduciary relationship	UBS: The accounts were nondiscretionary custodial IRAs; federal tax rules do not create a state-law trust or fiduciary duty; relationship is contractual/consumer in nature	Held: No fiduciary duty. Nondiscretionary IRA custodian–beneficiary relationship is not a fiduciary one absent special agreement or facts creating elevated trust.
Whether UBS's conduct violated G. L. c. 93A (unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce)	Aliberti: UBS unreasonably froze the large IRA for ~2½ years, failed to communicate, distributed small IRAs without adequate process, and forced her to incur counsel fees—constituting unfair business practices	UBS: Its actions were reasonable risk-avoidance (designation "disputed") and not outside ordinary contractual or probate dispute resolution; conduct not in trade/commerce or not unfair	Held: Allegations are sufficient. Interactions occurred in a business context, Aliberti has standing, and UBS's prolonged refusal to distribute or communicate plausibly states a c.93A claim; dismissal reversed and claim remanded.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must allege facts plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief)
Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (2008) (Mass. application of plausibility standard to pleadings)
Estate of Moulton v. Puopolo, 467 Mass. 478 (2014) (elements required to prove breach of fiduciary duty)
Kattar v. Demoulas, 433 Mass. 1 (2000) (c.93A standing is not limited by privity)
Rafferty v. Merck & Co., 479 Mass. 141 (2018) (elements for a G. L. c. 93A claim)
Feeney v. Dell Inc., 454 Mass. 192 (2009) ("trade or commerce" requires a business context)
PMP Assocs., Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 366 Mass. 593 (1975) (three-factor test for unfairness under c.93A)