Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): paid out an allegedly undervalued lump sum to his bank account in the Northern District of Illinois "arguably supports that the 'breach took place’ in the Southern District of Illinois....” Appellant's Br. at 15 n. 5. We shall not consider this undeveloped argument. See United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991) ("We repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived....”). 2 . This court has addressed the meaning of § 1132(e)(2)’s service of process provision ("and process may be served in any other district where a defendant resides or may be found”). See Bd. of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' Nat’l Pension Fund v. Elite Erectors, Inc., 212 F.3d 1031, 1035-37 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Elite Erectors did not determine, however, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that erisas venue provision can provide broad access to the federal courts and clarifying that nationwide service of process is available only if the suit is an action under this subchapter   emphasis in original quoting 29 usc  1132e2 (B) holding such service satisfies due process (C) holding that ricos nationwide service of process provision did not authorize service outside the united states (D) recognizing that it is well settled law that an action is commenced by the service of a summons and without valid service of process the trial court has no jurisdiction to act (E) holding that  1132e2 allows for nationwide service of process and thus jurisdiction and that the nationwide service of process provision comports with the constitution
Output (English): holding that ricos nationwide service of process provision did not authorize service outside the united states