## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918 , 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 M ICHAEL T H OM PS ON, e tal ., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, C ross-A pp ellees , v.

R ETI RE MENT P LAN FO R E MP L OY E E SOF S
. C. J OHNS ON & S ON, I NC . , a nd R ETI RE MENT P LAN FO R E MP L OY E E SOF J OH NS ON D IVER S EY, I NC ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees, C ross-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- cv-1047

—J. P. S tadtmuel ler , Judge .
A RG UE D M AY 13, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 22, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, K ANNE an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e p l a i nt i ff s , f o r me r me mber s o f the S. C. J ohnson and Jo hnsonDive rs ey cash b al ance2 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 p en sion p lans, app eal from an ord er of th e d is t rict court dism i ssi ng so m e of thei r cl ai m s a s unti m el y. They als o a p p ea l from t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s m et h od for c alcul ati ng the pl ai nti ff s’ r eco ver y. The Pl an defendants c r o s s - a p p e a l, c o n t e n d i n gth a ta l l th e p l a i n t i ff s ’ c l a i ms ar e unti m el y, and al so tak i ng i ss u e w i th the di str i ct co ur t’ s damag es c al cul at i o n metho d
. Fo r the r ea so ns that f ol l ow, w e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourti n m ostr espect s butr ev er se i n part an d r emand f o r i t to r ec o ns i derthe m etho d o fda m ag es c al cul at i o n.
I
. Ba ck g r o und A
. F acts I n 1 998 S
. C. J o hns o n & S o n a m en ded i ts ERI S A pl an, conve rt i ng i t fro m a tr adit i on al d efi ned benefi t pl an i nto a “ c as h ba lan c e” p lan . C as h ba lan c e p lan s a re form ally cl ass i fi ed as defined b en efi t pl ans, but they functi on m or e l i ke defined contr ibuti on pl ans, i n p ar ticularby pr o vi di nga n a cc o untb al an ce f o r e ac h pa r ti ci pan t. But a cas h b a l a nc e p l a n pa r t i c i pa nt ’ s b a l a nc e i s o nl y a “ notio n al ” t oo l f ores ti m ati ng pensi on be nefi ts

— not an actualacc ount co ntai ni ng m oney . A s a m ended, the S
. C. J ohnson Pl an pro vid ed that each par ti ci pant ’s not i onalacc ount ba l ance woul d be in c re as ed by an n u al “ in te re st c r e d its .” T h e P lan ca lcul at ed i nt er est atthe g r ea te r o f4 % , o r 7 5% o fthe Pl an ’ s r at e o f return o n i ts i nv es tment s. F ur th er, the Plan prov ided t h a t, i f a p articipan t left the Plan be fore r ea c h i n ga g e 6 5 , th e p a r t i c i p a n tc o u l d t a k e a l u mp- s umN os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 3

I
. R. C. § 41 7( e) ( 3) ( A) ( i i)( I I ) ( 20 00 )
. Thi s s t atut or y pr es c ri pt i on 1 was i n e ff ec tfro m 19 94 to 20 06
. Pri or to 19 94 , the fede ra l Pe ns i on Benefi t G uaranty Co rporati on se t the app ropriat e dis count rat e. S ee Tax R ef orm Act of1986, Pub
. L. N o. 99- 514, § 1139(b), 100 (co n tin u ed ...) di st r ibut i o n o fthe v al ue of the a cc o unt . Howev er, the provi si ons ofthe Pl an ensur ed that any l um p-sum di str ibuti on would be o n l y the cur re nt acc ount ba l ance. N o up w ard adj us tm en t w ou ld be m ad e for th e futu re in te re st cr ed its th e p ar tic ip an t w ou ld ea rn by st ay in g in th e Pl an . T h e E R ISA st at u te h as so m et h in g t o s ay ab ou t e ar ly l um p-sum d istr ibuti ons: theym ust be the “actuari al equi val ent” ofthe val ue o fthe acco unt at age 65
. 29 U .S.C . § 10 54 (c )(3) ; s e e B e rg e r v . X e r o x C o rp . Re t . In c o me Guar
. Pla n , 338 F.3d 755 , 759 (7th C ir. 2003). T he d r a ft e rs ofthe prese nt Pl ans were obvi ousl y a w ar e o fthi s r ule , because theyi ncl ud ed § 5
. 2, wh i ch st ate s: The Ca shBa l an ce Acco unt i s th e Actua r i alEqui va l en t o fthe pr oj ec te d a nnui tya t no r m alr et i r ement because the Pl an deem s the re turn on 30 ye ar Tre asu r i e s t o b e th e r e a s o n a b l e r a t e o fr e t u r n t o a s s u me for p u rp os es of th at p roj ec tio n . . . . Th i s s ecti on cr eat ed a wash cal cul ati on desi gned to ad d ze ro int er es t t o lu m p -su m d ist rib u tio n s. T h is is because duri ng the r el evantper i od ERIS A pre scr ibed th at, whenc al cul at i ngthe p resen t va l ue o fl um p- su m dist ributi ons, p lans s houl d use the 30
- yea r Treas ury ra te as the di sco unt ra te. S o i fa p ar tic i pant w as l eaving at 14 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 St at. 2 085, 24 87( 19 86 )
. Ef f ec t i ve i n 2 00 7, thi s e nt i re c al c ul at i on was no l onge r re qui re d bec aus e Congr es s s anc t i one d l um p- s um d ist ri b u tio n s a t n o m o re t h a n t h e ca sh b a la n ce a cc o u n t v a lu e. S ee P en sio n P ro te ct io n A ct o f 20 0 6 , P u b . L
. N o . 10 9 -2 8 0 , § 7 0 1 (a )(2), 1 2 0 St a t. 7 8 0 , 92 0 , 98 4 (20 0 6 ). There are actuall y two Plan def endan ts ( and two Plans) here : 2 The S. C. J ohn s on Pl an, an d t he J ohn s onDi ver s ey Pl an. The J ohnsonD ivers ey Plan s plitfrom the S. C. J ohnson Plan eff ecti ve J anuar y 1, 1 9 99

— s eve n m onths aft er the t ra ns i t i on t o a (co n tin u ed ...) age 40 , the Pl an would cal culate i nter esto ut to ag e 6 5 atthe 3 0- y ea r Trea su r y r at e, a s pr es cr ibe d i n § 5
. 2 o fthe Pl an

— th e n d i s c o u n ti tb a c kt o a g e 4 0 a tth e e x a c ts a me r at e, as pr es cr ibe d b y the s ta tu te . The pa r ti ci pan t w ou ld th er efo re rec eiv e a s a n et am ou n t o n ly h is cu rrent ac cou nt balanc e (w ithou t futu re i nt erest). This provi si on was co ncededly unlaw ful. The 30

- yea r Treas ury ra te, despi te th e Pla n’s ipsedixit, di d not produce the “a ctuar i alequi val ent” ofw h at the Pl an provi ded to o ngoi ng par ti ci pants

— i nter est cal cul ate d atthe g r ea te r o f 4% or 75 % o fthe Pl an ’ s r at e o fr etur n. The Pl ans e ff ecti vel y penal i zed l um p-sum di str ibutees by voi ding thei r future i nter estcr edi ts, and thi s v i ol ate d E R ISA
. See B erger, 338 F.3d at76 1; Esd en v. Bank o f Bost on , 229 F.3d 154 , 168 (2d Cir. 2000).

B
. Proced ura l H istory The pla i nti ff s, parti ci pants i n the S. C. J ohnson P l an 2N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 c as h ba l ance p lan
. The r el eva ntpr ovi s i ons ofthe t wo pla ns ar e s ubs t ant i vel y i dent i c al
. Dat es r el eva nt to the s t atut e of lim itation s a re d ifferen t, b u t insign ifi can tly so
. T o a v oid re pet i t i on, we r efer thr ougho utt o the dat es thatapply to the S. C. J oh nsonPl an. Thi s opi ni on appl i es t o a l l par t i es an d reso lv es the en tire ap p eal. w h o re c eiv ed lum p -su m d ist rib u tio n s, filed th is s u it i n the Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c t o f W i s c o ns i n o n No v e mbe r 27, 20 07
. T h e P l a n d e f e n d a n t s mo v e d t o d i s mi s s o n the g r o und tha t th e pl aint i ff s ha d no t ex ha us te d the i nt erna l Pl anr emedi es , b utthe di st r i ctc o ur t d en i ed th e m o ti o n i n Nov embe r o f2 00 8. S o m et i m e th er ea fter, the P lan s c on c ed ed th e u n law fu ln es s o f th e lu m p -su m p ro visi ons. The parti es fi l ed cr oss - m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gmen t . T he P l a n de f e nd a nt s a r g ue d inte r alia tha t th e pl ainti ff s’ c l ai m s wer e ti m e-ba r r ed. I n Mar ch o f2 01 0, the di st r i ctc o ur t par ti al l y r es o l ve d the s um m ar y j udg m en t m ot ion s. A t t h e o u ts et, th e c o u r t h eld th at th e a p p lica b le st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns was W i sc o ns i n’s si x- y ea r c o ntr act l i m i tat i ons peri od. W i s. S tat . § 893. 43. N ext, the cour t had to deter m i ne wh en the pl ainti ff s’ cl a i ms a c c r ue d, a de t e r mi na t i o n g o v e r ne d b y fe de ra l law
. Se eYoungv. Ve r izon’s Be l l At l
. Cas h Bal anc ePla n , 615 F. 3d 808, 81 6 ( 7th C ir. 20 10)
. The co urt w as f aced w ith thr ee possibl e a ccr ual dates
. Fi rs t, i t co uld hol d th atthe c l ai m s accrue d i n 1 99 8 o r 1 99 9, whenthe Pl an s dist ributed to part i ci pants S PD s a nd o theri nfo rm a-6 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 t i o na l ma t e r i a l ab o utthe n e w c a s h bal anc e P l a n. S e c o nd , th e c o u r t c o u l d h o l d th a t th e c l a i ms a c c r u e d a t th e t i me th e pl aint i ff s r ec ei ved the i r de fi ci en t l um p- su m di st r ibuti o ns . Thi r d, i t co ul d ho l d tha t e ve n the r ec ei pt o fthe l um p- su m di st r ibut i o ns di d no t st ar t th e l i m i ta ti o ns p eriod, and so the plaintiffs’ claim s acc rue d at som e later, uns pec i fi ed ti m e. W i se l y, the c o urt h ad di vi ded th e p lai nt iffs into tw o sub classes: sub class A , plaintiff s w ho had r ecei ved thei r l um p-sum di stribu tio ns after N o ve m be r 2 7, 2 00 1 ( si x y ea r s pr i o r to fi l i ngs ui t) , a nd su b c las s B , pla in ti f f s w h o h a d r e c e i v ed th eir l um p- su m di st r ibut i o ns b efo r e N o ve m be r 2 7, 2 00 1. The cou rt h e ld th at th e claim s accru ed w he n th e plaintiff s r ec eived the i r l um p- su m di st r ibut i o ns ; the r efo r e, the subcl ass A pl ai nti ff s were ti m el y a nd the subcl ass B pla i nti ff s were unti m el y. Si nce th e Pl an had adm i tte d i ts w ash ca l cul ati on was un law ful, the cou rt nex t had to consid er sub class A ’s r ec o ve r y . T h e s u b c l a s s A p l a i n t i ff s we r e e n t i t l e d t o the val ue, atthe ti m e o fthei r l um p-sum di stribu ti ons, o f fut ur e i nt er es t paym en ts o f4 % o r 7 5% o fthe Pl an ’ s i nvest m ent r etur n ra te. Of cour se, ther e is no f or m ula to cap t ur e tha t v a l ue c o nc l us i v e l y s i nc e the r e i s no way ofkno w i ng ex antewh at the Pl an’ s a nnual i nvest
m ent r etur ns wil l be. Both the pla i nti ff s a nd the Pla n d efendants as ked f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r of thei r propos ed m eth od of calcu lating th e w rongly d ep rived fut ure i nter estcr edi ts. But the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not s el ect a m etho d. I nstead , it “o rder [ ed] that [ the Pl ans] r ecal cul ate l um p sum di str ibution s pu rs uant to the re quir em entsN os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 7

The p art ie s have supp li ed d etai le d b ri efing on s everal 3 m ethods ofc al c ul at i ng fut ur e i nterestc re di t s , butour hol di ng m ake s i tunn ec es s ar y t o di s c us s the m i n de pt h. C on krigh t v. From m ert, 13 0 S. C t. 1 6 4 0 (20 1 0 ). 4 o fthe l aw. ” The c o ur t furthe r pr o vi ded th ati fthe par t i e s “ a r e un a b l e t o r e a c h a n a g r e e men t . . . they r emai n fr ee t o r es ubmi t th e issue to th e co ur t . . . . ” The co ur t r el i ed o n D urand v. Hano ver I n s. G roup, Inc. , 56 0 F
. 3d 43 6, 4 42 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 9) , a s au th o r i tyf o r de lega ting the r eco ver y i ssue to the par ti es. Unsur pr i sing l y, the pa r ti es c o ul d no t ag r ee o n a m etho d ofcal cul at in g future i nter estcr edi ts. The di str i ct co ur t r ec ei ve d fur th erb r i efi ngo n h o w to c al cul at e th e re c ove ry, and i ssued an or der re sol vi ng the m att er in

3 Augus t o f2 01 0. I n s o do i ng, the c o ur t credi te d the Pl an defendants’ co ntenti on that they w er e enti tl ed to defer en ce i n c ho o sing th e appr o pr i at e m etho d. The cour t stated i n re l evantpart, “[ t] he co urt bel i eve s that Conkr ight s uppo r ts r efer r alo fthe i nt er es t cr edi ting

[ 4] ra te questi on to th e Pl ans a nd co m pel s a gr ant o f d efer ence to the Pl ans’ pro posed m etho d fo r re c alcul ati ng l um p sum di str ibuti ons. ” Th en, the cour t s el ecte d a m odi fi ed ver si on o fthe P lan d efendants’ se cond proposed m etho d, w hi ch provi ded that future in ter est sh ou ld be ca lculated by usin g the Plans ’ average retu rn rate over th e five years leadin g up to each pa rtici p an t’s l um p- su m di st r ibut i o n. T h e p lain tiffs tim ely ap p ea led , an d th e P lan s t im ely c ro ss -ap p ea led . W e p er c eiv e t h e q u es tio n s p re se n te d in thi s a pp ealto be as f ol l ows:8 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 1) Tim el i ness a) Di d the pl ai nt i ff s’ i nj ur i es a cc r ue whenthe Plan circulated inform ation about th e c onv ersi on t o a ca sh bal ance pla n i n 199 8 a nd 19 99? b) I fno t, di d the pl aint i ff s’ i nj ur i es a cc r ue when th eyrecei ve d l um p- su m di st r ibut i o ns aff ec te d b y the unl awfulPl anpr o vi si o n? 2) T he Plaintiff s’ Reco very a) Shou ld th e d istri ct cou rt de term ine how fut ure i nter estcr edi ts shoul d b e val ued forpurposes ofdeter m i ni n g s ubcl ass A ’ s r eco ver y, o r shoul d the par ti es? b ) I s the P l a n de f e nd a nt s ’ p r o po s e d me tho d o f cal cul ati ng future i nter estcr edi ts entitled to defe re nce? c) H ow shoul d the p lai nti ff s’ future i nter est c r e di t s b e c a l c ul a t e d?

II. A n aly sis A. S ta tu te o fLi m i ta ti o ns N ei therparty i s co m ple tel y sat i sfi ed w i th the di str i ct cour t’ s s tatut e ofl i m i tat i ons rul i ng. The Pl an defendants ar gue that th e c ou rt w as cor re ct t o rul e that s ubcl ass B was untim el y, s i nc e th ei r l um p- su m di st r ibut i o ns occur re d oversi x yea rs befor e they fi l ed thei r com plai nt. Butthe Pl an s woul d ha ve us g o f ar th era nd fi nd su b c las s A u n t im ely as w ell, be c au se th ey be liev e a llN os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 9

O u r accr u al an aly sis differs from t h e d istrict cou rt’ s be cau se 5 the dist ri ctcourt rel ie d on l angu age thatderives from cas es con sid erin g v iola tion s of ER ISA § 51 0 , “In terferen ce w ith protecte d rights
. ” SeeTol l e v. C ar ro l l Touch, Inc. , 977 F. 2d 1129, 11 39 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92 )
. The r ea s on we f or m ul at ed a n i ndepe nden t ac c ru al fra m ewor k f or § 51 0 c l ai m s i n Tol l e w as p r ecisely bec ause w e bel i eve d t hatthe c ons i der at i ons unde rl yi ng accr ual i n cas es b ro u ght und er § 502( a) ( li ke the prese nt c ase ) w ere dist inguis hable. W e d o not hold thatthe Tol l e an aly sis is i napp li cable, but w e prefer t o decide thi s ca se in rel iance o n ac cr u a l p re ce d en ts sp ec ific to § 5 0 2 (a ). p ar tic ip an ts w er e in for m ed of th e re lev an t P lan p ro visions in 1 99 9 ( an d the l aws ui t was fi l ed afte r 2 00 5)
. The pla i nti ff s a rgue thatthe cour t was co rr ect to rul e that su b c las s A w as tim ely , an d th a t s u b c las s B sh ou ld al so ha ve bee n t r ea te d a s ti m el y b ec au se the l um p- su m dist ributi ons did notst ar t the st atute o fl i m i tat i ons cl ock
. A s the district cou rt ap p reciated , a ccru al ofER I SA cl ai m s i s gov er ned by f edera l l aw , al though the statute ofl i m i tat i ons i tse l fi s bo rr owed fro m st ate l aw . See Young, 6 15 F.3d at 81 6. W e ha ve he l d tha t “[ t] he ge n er al fe d er al c om m o n l a w ru le is t h at an E R ISA cla im accr ues when the pl ai nti ffkno w s o r shoul d know of c on d u c t t h at in te rfe re s w ith th e p lain tiff’s E R ISA righ ts .” Id
. at 817. Fur ther, “a cl ai m to r eco verbene fi ts und er § 5 02( a) acc rues ‘ up on a c learand unequivo calr epud i ati on o fr i ghts und erthe pensi on pl an w h i ch has been m ade kn ow n t o the b enefi ci ar y. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng D ai l l v. She e tM e t al Worke rs ’Lo ca l 73 Pe ns i on Fun d, 10 0 F
. 3d 62, 65 (7th C ir. 1996)). 510 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 W e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s r ulings o n the sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons qu est i ons. A l though i t i s a ve rycl ose questio n, w e d is a g r e e w ith th e P lan d efe n d an ts th at ce rt ain SPDs a nd i nfo rm ati onalm ate ri aldi str ibuted to Pl an parti ci pants i n 199 8 a nd 19 99 am ounted to an “ un equi voca l re pu diat i on” suffi ci ent t o tr i gge r the s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons. T h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l P l a n i n f o r ma t i o n a l c o mm unica ti ons ci rcul ate d aro und 19 99 th at to uch on l um p-sum dist ributi ons. The 19 99 SPD sta ted, “[ y] ou ca n c h o o s e fr o m s e v e r a l p a y me n to p t i o n s i nc l ud i n ga l u mp sum paym ent a nd s eve ra l ty pes o f
. . . annui ti es. You can al so c ho o se t o l ea ve y o urmone y i n the pl ana nd c o nt i nue to ear n i nvest m ent c re dit s. ” The S PD then described t h e l um p -sum pa ym en t op tion as fol low s: “[t]he en tire v a l u e o fy o u r a c c o u n ti s p ai d i n o n e p a y me n t . No fu r th e r p e n s i o n b e n e fi tw i l l b e a v a i l a b l e fr o m th e C o mpany. ” I t l ate r sta ted , “ [y]ou can .
. . choo se to l eave yourm oneyi n yo ur r eti re m ent a ccount afte r you l eave the Com pany up untilag e 6 5. Each ye ar, yo ur Cash B ala n c e A c c ou n t w ill rec eiv e a n inv es tm en t c re d it.” W e thi nk tha t these SPD sta tem ents w er e inadequ ate to co n ve y t h e c ru c ial d efe c t in th e P lan s: th at ea rly l um p-s um di str ibuti ons w oul d not be i ncre ase d to r efl ec t th e pr es en t va l ue o ffut ur e i nt er es t cr edi ts c o nti nuing to age 65
. True, the 1999 SP D t ol d parti ci pants t h a t t h ey w ou ld n ot earn i nv estm en t cred its i f th ey left th e Pl an . Bu t t ha t woul d ha ve b ee n t r ue e ve n wi tha p ro p er ly-fu n c tio n i n g p lan , bec au se su c h a p lan w ou ld in c or p or ate the proj ecte d val ue o ffuture i nter estpaym ents i nto the l um p sum and then di sco nti nue thos e i nt er es t pay m en ts . And s ta tingtha t “[ t]he en ti r e va l ueN os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 11 ofyo ur a ccount [ w i l l be] paid i n one paym ent” does not e l uc i da t e h o w tha tv a l ue i s de c i de d. The Pl ans’ “Inve sti ng i n You” newsle tte rs al so touched on l um p-sum di str ibuti ons, al th ou gh l i ke the S PD s they us ua l l y l eft co ns i der ab l e r o o m f o r unc er ta i nty . F o r i nsta nce, the sta tem en t that par ti ci pants co uld thi nk o f thei r cash b al ance a ccount as “m uch l i ke a savi ngs a cco unt ” co ul d b e r ea d t o s ug g es t th atl um p- su m di st r ibuti ons w oul d be i n the am ount o fthe ac c ou n t ba l ance only. Butthi s was a g en er i c co m par i so n t o i l l us tr at e th e diff er ence between the com pany’s tr adit i onalpensi on pl ana nd the ne w ca shb al an ce pl an . Ther e was no e xpl an at i o n o fho w f ar th e an al o g y ca r r i ed, an d a par ti ci pan t o bv i o us l y woul d ha ve b een inco r r ec t to a ss um e th atthe cash b al ance pl an was l i ke a ba nk ac count in eve ryr esp ect. I t is tru e th at seve ral “Inves ting in You ” new sletters st at e d t h at a lu m p -su m d ist rib u tio n w ou ld be in the a m ount o fthe cash b al ance a ccount. W e co ncl ud e, alt h ou gh notwitho ut so m e di ffi cul ty, thatthi s t oo w a s ina d eq u at e t o in itia te th e lim ita tio n s p er iod , i f on ly b ecause thes e newsl ett er s were obvi ousl y m eant to be a s im p lifi ed ex p lan at ion of a t ra n sit ion from on e c om p licate d plan s tr u cture to ano ther
. I n the conte xt i n w hi ch it a p p ea re d , th is in c i d en ta l st at em en t w ou ld n otlikely al er t a part i ci pant thathe was be i ng dep riv ed ofso m eth i n gt o w h i c h h e mi g h tb e e n t i t l e d
. We d o n o ta s s u me that a par ticip an t would have understo od i t t o have a l ega l eff ect orto m ea n that the ter m s o fthe Pl an i tse l funl aw full y o m i tte d th e obscur e future i nter est ri ght. A nd a parti ci pant f am i l i arwith the r igh t to future inte r es t m i g hts ti l l a ss um e th atthe fut ur e i n-12 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989

In that c ase , the plan u n equivocall y repud iat ed a guarantee 6 ofn o- c os tm e di c a l be ne fi t s by a s t a t e m e nti n the S PD t hat aft er a c er t ai n t ru s twas depl et ed, “ m onth l y pr em i um c ontr ibutions from ret ir ees w il l be requir ed.” Id. See, e. g. , C ar ey v. IBE W Local 363 Pensi on P l an , 201 F. 3d 44, 46 7 (2 d C ir. 19 99 ) (pen sion p lan un equ iv oca lly rep u d iated C ar e y ’s benef it s w ith le tt er st a tin g “you l ostal l you r pensi on ser vices cre dits du e t o the f actthat y o u incurred a break in s ervic e p ri o r t o b ei n g v es te d .”); D ai l l v. Shee tM et al Worke rs ’Loca l 73 Pe n si o n Fun d , 10 0 F
. 3d 6 2, 66 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96 ) ( Uni on une qui voc al l y r epudi at ed Dai l l ’ s § 50 2( a) ( 1) c l ai m f or a pen s i on wh en, i n “ [ a] thr ee - page l etter, the fund c ar eful l y a nd c om pre he ns i vel y e xpl ai ne d t he bas i s for i t s dec i s i on” thatDai l l was ‘ not en tit le d to a p en sio n fro m L o ca l 7 3 .’ ” ). te r es t cr edi ts woul d s o m eh ow be i nc o r po r at ed i n the acco unt bal ance. I n all, w e t hin k t he se SPD a nd n ew sletter s tatem en ts are a co l l ecti on o fhi nts. They a re a ss em bl ed i n one pla ce f orpurposes o fthi s l i ti gat i on, but f ro m t he per specti ve ofPl an part i ci pants the y a pp ear ed am ong the pag es of var i ous c i rcul ati ons dist ributed o ver the co urse o f m on th s . A lth ou gh it is c er ta in ly p os sib le t h at ge n er ic Pl anc o m m uni ca ti o ns c anpr o spe ct i ve l y r epu di at e uneq u ivo c ally p ar tic ip an t rig h ts , s e e, e.g., Winn ett v. C a terpill ar, Inc. , 60 9 F.3d 4 04 , 4 10 ( 6th Ci r. 20 10) , we note 6 th at th e m or e t ra d i t i o n al c as e in w h ich rec ov er y is b ar re d inv olv es so m e d ire c t c om m u n ic at ion to a p ar tic ipan t who i s ac tu al l y pr es singth e issue. I n the pr es en t 7 ca se, give n the r el at i ve o bs cur i tyo fthe r i g hta t i ss ue , the fac t t h at m os t o f th e P lan s’ re fer en c es t o lu m p -su m d ist ri-N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 13 buti ons off er ed onl y obl i que gu i dance abo ut the cruci al fl aw a t i ss ue he re, a nd the f ac t th atthe mos t i l l um i na ting state m en ts w ere foun d in inform al Pla n new sletters as o ppo se d t o the mor e l eg al l y wei g hty SP D s, we th i nk that ther e has bee n no c l earand unequivo calr ep u d iatio n ofthe parti ci pants’ rights to future i nter estcr edi ts u n d er E R ISA . A c c or d in gly , th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly h eld th at th e s ta tu te of lim ita tio n s p e r i od d id n otbe gin i n 199 8 o r 1999
. W e fur th era g r ee wi ththe di st r i ctc o ur t th atwh en the p ar tic ip an ts rec eiv ed th eir lum p - su m d ist rib u tio n s, th is se r ve d a s anu ne qui vo ca l r epu di at i o n o fa ny e nt i tl ement to benefits b eyond the ac count ba l ance. A s no ted a bove , i nform ational circulars con fi rm ed that after a lu m p -su m d ist rib u tio n, n o ad d itio n al ben efit s w o u ld be f orthc o m i ng . Gi ve n tha t th e di st r ibut i o ns wer e ca l culated cons istent w ith th e Plan doc um en t an d every Pl an co m m unica ti on, the l um p-sum di str ib u tions se rv ed as the fi nal st ep ofa cl earr epud i ati on o fthe parti ci pants’ enti tl em ent t o anythi ng di ff er ent. W e s pe c i fi c a l l y r ej e c tthe p l a i nt i ff s ’ a r g ume nt, i n s up porto fthe thesi s that the l um p-sum di str ibuti ons did not sta rtthe runni ng o fthe sta tute of lim i tat i ons, thatthey co ul d no t ha ve un der st o o d the i r i nj ur y wi th o uts ee i ng th e ful l Pl ando cument . Co nt r ar y t o the pl aint i ff s’ a r g um ent, the Pl an defen dants di d not i m proper l y c oncea l the wash cal cul ati on i n the Pl an d ocum ent; theyneve r m enti oned i t t o the par ti ci pants be cause i t was desi gned to have no e ff ect. M or eov er, the pla i nti ff s di d not nee d to see th e w ash calcula t io n l a ng ua ge in the P lan to un d er-14 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989

H er e, we m us t paus e t o addre s s an ar gum en t by the pla in- 8 t i ff s th a t s u r f a c e d f o r th e fi r s tt i me a to r a l a r g u me n t . We di s c us s i ti n the intere s tofge t t i ng the l aw ri ght
. The pl ai nt i ff s r efer re d t o Wal ke r v. M onsa nto C o. Pensi on Pl an , 614 F. 3d 415 ( 7th Cir
. 2010), fo r the propo si ti on that the ri ght to future i nt er es t c re di t s der i ves f ro m the ER I SA pl an, and not from the ER I SA s t atut e. Thus , the pl ai nt i ff s ar gue , the y need ed to s e e the Pl a n do c umen t t o kn ow tha t the y ha d b een i nj ur e d. W e w ill not rec ou nt th e co m p l ex an d entire ly d isting u isha b le fa ct s o f Wal ker, b ec a u se i t d o e s n o t sa y w h a t th e p la in tiffs c ont en d. The pr es en tpl ai nt i ff s di d notne ed t o r efer en c e the Plan t o und ers tand thei r i njury; the y needed to referenc e the ER ISA st atute an d law i nter preti ng it
. Those s ources m ay b e ob scu re, bu t that w ill not b e he ld ag ain st the d efend an ts. st an d tha t th eyha d r ec ei ved th ei r a cc o untb al an ce a nd not hin g m ore. B eginn ing in 2003 th e d en ialof futu re in te re st cr e d its w as u n law fu l un d er sq u ar ely ap p lica b le p re c ed en t fro m th is c ou rt . See B erger, 33 8 F
. 3d at 763. 8 T h e p lain tiffs p oin t t o t h is c ou rt ’s 2 01 0 o p in ion in Young f orthe propos i tio n that a l um p-sum di str ibuti on do es no t st ar t t he s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns c l o ck
. I n Young, we s t a t e d, Veri zon ar gues th at Y ou ng’ s cl ai m acc rued .
. . wh en she r ecei ved herl um p-sum bene fi t . . . . A t that t i m e, how ev er, the pa r ti es ’ di spu te o ve r the c o r r ec t i nterpr et at i o n o fthe Pl anha d not dev el o ped. And nothi ng sugge sts that the $286 , 095 paym ent t hat Yo ungr ec ei ve d s ho ul d ha ve b ee n a r ed fl agtha t sh e was unde r paid. .
. . The 1 99 8 pay m en t th atYo ung r ec ei ve d was no t so i nc o ns i st en t wi thher cur r en tN os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 15 cl ai m f oraddit i onalbene fi ts as to se rv e as a cl ear r epu di at i o n. Young, 615 F
. 3d at 816. But Young d oe s n otco n tr ol th is case f ortwo r eas ons. Fi r s t, the r i g httha tthe l ump- s um di s t r ib ut i o n needed to “ cl ea r l y r epu diate ” was v er y di ff er en t i n Young . In that case, t h e t rust ees were i gnor i ng a scr i vener ’ s e rr or i n the Pl an docum ent a nd di str ibuti ng l um p sum s that w er e s m alle r th an t h e P lan liter ally p re sc rib ed
. Id. at 814. Thus , the l um p- sum di st r ibut i o n di d no t pl ac e Yo ung o n n o t i c e th a t th e Pl a n w a s i g n o r i n go n e f a c t o r i n a c o mple x f or m ula in the pla n docum ent. H er e, i n contr ast, the l um p-sum d ist ributi on m er el y nee ded to sho w that par ti ci pan ts woul d r ec ei ve the i r a cc o un t ba l an ce a nd n o m or e. T h at sim p le fa c t is w h at m ad e t h e P lan s u n law fu l. The s ec o nd r ea so n Yo u ng i s no t co ntro l l i ng i s that unl i k e th e pr es en t pl aint i ff s, th e pl aint i ff in Young ex h au st ed th e p lan ’s in te rn al re m ed ies
. Id. at 814. She ther eby furni shed an al ter nati ve accr u aldate: the date th e pl anfi na l l y de ni ed he r c l ai m . Yo ung pe r su ade d us that that her l um p-sum di str ibution d id not a l er t herto her i nj ury ( f orthe re aso ns detai l ed above) , so we gave h er th e b en efit o ft h e la te r ac c ru al d at e. Id. at 816. I n vi ew o ftho se f ac ts , the pr es en t pl aint i ff s ar e no t r ea l l y a sk i ng to be tr eat ed l i ke the Young pl a i nt i ff a t a l l
. They have been gi ven a p ass o n exhausti ng the i r i nter nal r em edi es, and the y n o w i nv i t e u s t o e xt e nd Young bya l l o wi ng16 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989

O r atl eas t, the plai nti ff s w ould like u s to a pp ly an ac crual 9 date that p re su p p oses thatthe i njury was som ehow conce ale d f ro m the m . W e ha ve rej ec t ed the pl ai nt i ff s ’ the or y thatan y s uc h c on c e a l m e nth a s o c c ur r e d. them to sl i p by with no a ccr u al d at e. W e wil l not 9 ther eby approve null i fi cati on of the sta tute oflim i tati o ns . Henc e, we r ej ec t bo th th e p la i nt i ff s’ a nd the de f en dants’ o bj ecti ons to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s co ncl usi ons on the l i m i tat i ons i ssue.
B. Who Cho o se s th e M etho d o fCa l cul at i ng

Sub class A ’s Reco very The Pl an defendants argue that they ar e e nti tl ed to sel ect the m eans ofcal cul ati ng subcl ass A ’ s r eco ver y. They p oint to a hosto fcas es supp or ti ng the not i on that ER I S A fi du c i a r i e s a r e enti t l e d t o de f e r e nc e i n the i r a dm i ni str ati on o fthe pla n . In part i cul ar, theyci te Conkr ight v. F r o m m ert, 13 0 S
. Ct. 16 40 ( 2010 ) , f orthe propos i ti on that thei r i nter pretati ons ofthe Pl an ar e e nti tl ed to a d efe re n c e t h at su rv ive s d es p ite an in i t i a l im p er m iss ible i nt er pr et at i o n. Br i efl y, i n C onk right th e Sup rem e C ou rt re ite ra te d th e p olic y, m os t p ro m in en t l y a rt icu lat ed in Fires tone Tire & RubberCo
. v. Bruch , 4 8 9 U. S
. 1 0 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , o f defer r i ngt o Pl anfi duci ar i es whenthe y a r e i nt er pr eti ng Pl an te rm s. The Courtcl ar i fi ed that ER I SA fi du c i ar i es ar e no t s tr i pp ed ofd efer ence because o fan ini ti al im p rop er in t e r p retation; they d o not labor un d er a “o n e-s tr ike

- a n d -yo u ’re -ou t” reg im e. Id. a t1 6 4 6
. Ac c o r dingly, the P lan d efend an ts argu e, th e d is trict courtN os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 17 shoul d have s el ecte d their fi rs t pr oposa l ( the “ sprea d m etho d”), and al ter nati vel y, sho uld nothave m odi fi ed th eir secon d m eth od (t h e “fi ve-year avera ge”) before adopti ng i t. W e do not cre ditthe defe nd ants ’ ar gum ent that they ar e o w ed defe re nce her e, bec ause they did n ot m ake a disc re ti onar y deci sio n enti tl ed to defer ence, and i nd eed the y c o ul d no t ha ve . The r el i an ce o n C onk right i s i na pt b e c a us e the i s s ue he r e i s no t i nt e r pr e t a t i o n, a nd “ Fi r e s t one i s l i m i te d t o que st i o ns o fplan i nt e rpre t at i on . . . . ” Fletc her v. K rog erCo. , 9 42 F
. 2d 11 37, 1 13 9 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 1)
. The d oc tr in e “ d oe s no t brin g d es ign d ec isio n s w ith in E R ISA .” Bel adev. I TTCorp. , 909 F.2d 73 6, 73 8 (2 d C ir. 19 90 ); see al s o Rasena ckv . AI G Li f eIns . Co. , 58 5 F
. 3d 1311 , 13 15 ( 10 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ Und e r t r us tp r i nc i pl e s , a de f e r e nt i al st an d ar d of re vi e w is ap p ro p ria te w h en tru st ee s a c tu ally ex er ci se a di sc r et i o na r y po we r ‘ves te d i n the m b y the instru m en t un d er w hich they act.’ ”) ( citation om itted ). H er e, th e Pl an do cument s m ade a g en er al gra nt o fdi scr et i o n t o the Pl ana dm i ni st r at o r s i n § 1 1. 3, b ut did notgi ve th em di scr eti on t o am end the Pl an te rm s; th e p ow er to am en d w as res er ve d by th e c om p an y in § 1 4.1
. Cf. B rum m v. Be r tBe l l NFL Ret i r e m e ntPla n , 99 5 F. 2d 1433 , 14 37 ( 8th Ci r. 19 93) (des cribi ng a pla n that g av e th e admi ni st r at o r s “di sc r et i o na r y po wer ‘ to defi ne and am end the ter m s of the Pl an and Trust .
. . . ’ ”)
. M or eove r, the Pl ans’ ge nera l i zed gr ant o fi nt er p reti ve disc re tion d id n ot au th orize the ad m inistrators to con trovert th e c lea r te rm s o f th e P lan
. SeeM arrs v. M o to rola, Inc. , 57 7 F. 3d 783, 78 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( “The adm i ni str ato r i s no t by v i r t u e o fs u c h a g r a n t o f a u th o r i t y fr e e t o d i s r e g a r d u n a m-18 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989

In fact, the reco rd con tain s seve r a l P l an d ocu m en ts, b eca u se 10 the re ar e tw o P lan d efend an ts and b eca u se ther e w ere re v isi ons over th e cou rs e ofthe cl ass period. W e have revie w ed the P l a n d ocu m en ts thor ou g hly in co nn ectio n w ith th is discu ssi on. The language of the rel evant prov is ions evolved over the rel ev a nt peri od , but not i n a w ay that inj ect ed an op po r t un i t y f ori nt e rpr e t a t i ono fthe a ppr op r i a t e l umps um di s t rib u t i on val ue. I ndee d, i ts ee m s thatthe unl awful polic y actual ly becam e m ore e xpli ci t over t im e. b igu ou s la n gu ag e in th e p lan
. . . .”); C all v
. Am er it ec h M gm t . Pe ns i on Plan , 47 5 F
. 3d 816, 82 2- 23 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “[ U ] nam bi guous ter m s ofa pensi on pl an l eave no ro om for th e exe rcise of interp retive di s cretion by the p lan’s ad m in ist ra to r . . . .”); Cozzi ev. M e t r opol i t an Li f eIns . Co. , 140 F. 3d 1104, 11 08 ( 7th C i r. 1998) (“[ E]ve n [ gi ven a br oad g r an t o fdi sc r et i o n] , the [ad m in i st r at o r ] i s bo und b y the ter m s o fthe doc u m en t. I nter preta ti on a nd m odi fi cati on ar e d iffer en t; th e p ow e r t o d o t h e firs t d oe s n otim p ly th e po w er to do th e secon d
. ”). T h es e Pl ans di d not g i ve the a dm i ni str ato rs any disc re ti o n i n h o w to cal cul at e fut ur e i nt er es t f o r l um p- su m dist ributees bec ause the unl aw ful “w ash” cal cul ati on w as effe c tiv ely co d ified in t h e P lan s. S e c tio n 5.2 10 dec l ar ed ( i ncorre ct l y ) tha t th e ca shb al an ce a cc o unt val ue e qua l ed th e “a ctua r i ale qui va l en t” o fthe v al ue at age 65
. A nd under § 5. 5(e), that “ac tuar i alequi val ent” was t o b e th e amoun t o fa ny lum p -s um di st r ibut i o n. To fur the r dr i v e the p o i nth o me, the P l a n “ de e med ” the 3 0- year tr eas ury ra te to be “ the re aso nabl e r ate o f re turn . . . f or pu rpos es of [ the actuar ial eq uiv al ency] p roj ec tio n .” § 5 .2 (em p h as is a d d ed )
. A n d th e d efin i-N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 19

Se e al so 29 U.S
. C. § 1104( a) ( 1) ( D ) ( requir ing plan fiduciari es 11 to m an age the pl an “i n a c c or danc e with the doc um en t s an d in str u m en ts g o v er n in g th e p la n . . . . ” ). S ee Berger, 33 8 F .3d at 76 2 ; see a lso West v . A KS teel C orp . R et. 12 A cc u m ul at i on Pensi on Pl an , 48 4 F .3d 39 5 , 41 0 (6t h C ir . 20 0 7 ); E sden , 229 F. 3d at 168- 69. A “frontl oad ed inte res t c reditplan” i s si m ply a cas h balance 13 plan thatpays the parti ci pant int eres t for the p eri od between l e a vi ng the pl a n and ag e 6 5
. A c a s h ba l a nc e pl a n m us tbe fro n tlo a d ed to b e t a x-q u a lifi ed
. S ee Berger, 338 F. 3d at 762. ti ons sect i on, § 2. 1, al so defined the “ actuar i alequi val ent” by re f er ence to the 30- yea r tr eas ury, and l i nk ed th is val ue to the l um p - sum di str ibuti on a m ount. Thus, pro j ecting future i nter estcr edi ts w i th a d iffer ent r ate w oul d have be en an abandonm ent, notan inter p re tati on, o fthe P lan s’ t er m s. S uch a proj ecti on would pre

s uma b l y h a v e v i o l a t e d § 1 1
. 2 o fthe Pl a n, wh i c h f o rb a de th e p lan ad m inistrator from ad op ting rules “ c o nt rary to the s peci fi c p ro vi si ons ofthe Pl an. ” A ccor dingl y, 11 Pl an d efe n d an ts ap p lied th e w as h ca lcu lat ion m ini ste ri al ly. The Pl an ’ s pr es cr i pti ve a ppr o ach to c al cul at i ng lu m p -su m f u tu re int er es t c re d its , alth ou gh n ow likely re gr ett ed , w as consi ste nt with a co ntro l l i ng I RS r egul ation. I RS N oti ce 9 6- 8, the author i ty ofwh i ch w e hav e re cogni zed, speci fi cal l y r equi re s (1) that a cas h bal ance 12 pla n dict ate a proj ecti on m etho d; an d (2) thatthe prescr ib ed m etho d m ust no t a l l ow d i scr eti on. The N oti ce sta tes i n re l evantpart, A fro ntl oaded i nter estcr edi t pla n thatspeci fi es [ 13] a va r i ab l e o ut si de i nde x f o r us e i n de te rm ining the20 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989

I
. R. C. § 40 1 s et s f or th the bas i c pre re qui s i t es to enjoy the 14 pre f er en t i al t ax t re at m en tthe C od e pro vi des f or r et i re m en t p la n s. T h u s, a p la n th a t f a ils to “c o m p ly w ith Se ct io n 40 1 (a )(25 )” w ould, f or al l practi cal purp oses , f ail al together. I n thi s c onn ec t i on, we m us tr ej ec tas t oo c l eve r by ha l fthe 15 Pl an defen d ant s ’ ar gum en tthatthe y s houl d be al l owed the disc ret ion t o ado pt a new m eth o d thatdoes not perm itdisc re- (co n tin u ed ...) am ount o fi nter estcr edi ts m us tpre s cr i b et hem e t hod fo r reflectingfutu r e in terest credits i n the cal cul ati on o f an em p loy ee ’s a c c ru ed be n efit . In ord er to co m p ly wi th[ I
. R. C. ] se ct i o n 40 1( a) ( 25 ) , the m etho d, i nc l udi ng a c tu ar ial a ss u m p tio n s, if ap p lica b le, m us tpre cl ude e m pl oye rdis cre t i on . I RSNo t i c e 9 6
- 8 , “ Ca s h Ba l a nc e P e ns i o n Pl a ns , ” 1 9 9 6
- 1 C. B. 35 9 ( F eb
. 5 , 1 99 6) ( emphas i s adde d)
. The se r es tr i ct i o ns allo w a cas h bal ance pl an to co m plywith the r equi re m ent in I
. R. C. § 4 01(a) ( 25) thatpl an bene fi ts be 14 “defi ni tel y dete rm i nabl e. ” E sden , 22 9 F
. 3d at 166. I n sum , the Pl an defendants di d not e xerci se i nter preti ve di sc r et ion overthe pr oj ec ti o n r at e f o r c al cul at i ng fu tu re int er es t c re d its . N or d i d th e P lan te rm s p er m it su chi nt er pr et at i o n. The r efo r e, thi s i s no t ca se abo ut th e f i duci ar i es ’ c o ns tr ua l o fth e Pl an, a nd t he Suprem e C ourt ’ s Firesto ne a nd C onk right dec i si o ns ha ve l i tt l e au th o r i ta ti ve t o s ay . Es peci al l y g i ve n the I RS No t i c e , we a r e l o a th t o c o nv e r t thi s i nt o a mat t e r o fPl an d isc re tio n for t h e firs t t im e in co n n ec tio n w ith ca lcul ati ng dam ag es f orpart i ci pants wh o have l ong si nce l eft the Pl ans. I n hi nd si ght, i t s eem s that the defendants 15N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 21

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 15 t i on i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . F o r mal l y , th e i n t e r e s tc r e di t i n g me th od m us tbe pr es crib ed i n the pl an, an d t he on l y pe rs ons who can a m end thes e Plans are the em ployers

— pre c i s el y the persons f orbidd en from ex erc is ing dis cre ti on in N oti ce 96- 8. Tec hni c al i t i es as i de, the defen dant s ’ pr opos ed di s t i nct i on betw een dis cre ti on in f orm ula se lecti on and f orm ula applic ati o n i s il lus ory in this s cenari o, because the rec overy calc ulation m ethod w il l only be used one ti m e. The d efendan ts are as ki ng t o c ont ro l the on l y c al c ul at i on that m at t er s . W e thi nk tha t c o n ferring on the P lan d efend an ts the d iscretion to dev is e the ent ir e f orm ula ex post w ou ld m i s s the poi ntofthe IR S N o tic e, a n d I.R .C . § 4 0 1 (a )(25 ). S ee al so T reas . Reg
. 1. 411( d)- 4, Q & A

- 4, Q & A

- 5 & Q & A

- 7. ha d no way t o e sc ape be i nga cc o unt ab l e f o r the u n l a wfu l wa s h c a l c u l a t i o n o n c e i t wa s c o d i fi e d i n t he Pl ans ( othe r than per haps pro curi ng an am endm ent o f th e Pl ant er m s f r o m the e m pl o y er). Thi s was a n un f o r tu
nate predi cam ent f or the Pl an defe nd ants, but that does n otm ea n th ey are n ow en tit led to d efe re n c e in ca lcu lating the p lai nt iffs’ post- hoc re cove ry . S o m eo ne , how ev er, mustc ho o se a meth o d f o r making the inherent l y uncer tai n est i m ate thi s ca se re q u ire s. A s no E R I SA -spe cifi c ex cep tion ap p li es, th e d istrict cou rt sh ou ld as su m e it s a c c u st om ed res p on sib ility for c alcul ati ng the pl ai nti ff s’ r eco very. That has bee n the preva ilin g p ra c tic e in co m p ar ab le c as es . See E sden , 22 9 F. 3d at 177 ( “I t s hal l be f orthe d ist ric t cour t in the fi rs t i ns ta nc e to de te r m i ne the pr o perpr oj ec ti o n r ate f o r the c alc u lat io n of d am ag es . . . .”); We s tv. AK St e e l Corp. Ret
. Acc um ul at i on Pen s i on Plan , N o. 1: 02-cv-000 1, 2005 U
. S.22 N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989

T h e P lan d efend an ts urg e tha t this cou rt’ s B erger de c i s i on 16 supp orts the ir beli efthatthe ir calcu lat ion m ethod is ent it le d to defer en c e. The r ea l i t y i s qui t e the oppos i t e, s i nc e the di s t ri c tc o u r tr ej e c t e d th a ta r g u me n ta n d wa s a ffi r me d on app eal
. Si nce the Be rger d e fen d an ts ap p are ntly d id no t raise the defer en c e i s s ue on appe al, we di d not opi ne oni t . So B erger eithe r offers t h e d efend an ts no sup p or t or u nd erm ines th eir pos i t i on. D ist . L E X IS 37 86 3, at *5-6 (S .D . O h io D ec . 1 9, 20 05 ) (“W h ile th e fina nc iali m p act is eviden t and not trivial, the C ou rt aga i n rej ects Defendants’ ar gum ent that the 30

- yea r T re as u ry rat e s h ou ld be u se d .”), aff’d, 48 4 F
. 3d 395 ( 6th C i r. 20 07 ); Berge rv. Xe r ox Re t . Inc om eGuar
. Pla n , 2 31 F. S up p. 2 d 8 04 , 82 0 ( S. D. I l l
. 20 02) ( “A s t o Defe nd ants’ c on te n tio n th at th e C ou rtsh ou ld refe r th is c as e t o t h e . . . ad m in ist ra to r to d et er m in e th e pr op er ra te s fo r ca lc u lat in g b en efit s fo r . . . p ar tic ip an ts , th e C ou rtrejec ts th is p os itio n .”), a

ff’d as m o dif

ied, 33 8 F
. 3d 7 55 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ; 16 Lyon s v. Ge orgi a-P a cifi c Corp
. Sa l ar i e d Em pl e s . Re t . Pla n , 196 F. S up p. 2d 12 60, 12 66 (N .D . G a. 20 02) ( “[ B]as ed on th e E l eve nth Cir cui t’ s o pini on [ i n the sam e l i ti gatio n]
. . . the c o ur t co nc l ude s th at[ a spe ci fi ed r at e] i s th e ap p ro p ria te int er es t c re d itin g ra te .”); b u ts e eDu r and , 5 60 F.3 d at44 2 (st at in g t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rton rem an d “c ou ld si m ply aw ar d inj uncti ve re l i ef that re quir es [ th e P l an defe nd ant] , i n the fi rst in st an ce, to do what the l aw r equ ires. ”). Th e P la ns are un d ou bted ly correct that de term in ing ho w to m eas ure future i nter estpre sents speci al chal l enges , but est i m atin g d am age s i s o ften a specul ati ve, co unterf actuali nquir y. The di str i ct c ourti s pra cti ced i n thi s di sci pli ne and i s e qual to the tas k i n thi s ca se.N os. 10
- 3917, 10
- 3918, 10
- 3988 & 10
- 3989 23

Thi s i s no tt o s ay thatwe pe rceive an y p ro bl em with the 17 five- year average m ethodology the dis tr ic t c ourt a d o pted. It seem s a gr eat d eal m or e ad m inistra b le th an the p lain tiffs’ p ro b ab ilistic “ stoch astic” m eth od , an d m or e closely tied to th e P l a n s ’ a c t u a l i n t e r e s t c r e di t i n g me th o d ( wh i c h i s bas ed o n invest m ent returns) than is t h e d efendan ts ’ i nter es t r ate-based “s pre ad” m eth od. Al thoughwe do n otdec i de the que s t i on, w e note that T reas ury “safe harbor” re gulati ons and several p re ce d en ts su p p o rt th e u se o f su ch a n a v e r a g e. S ee T rea s. R eg . 1.4 0 1 (a )(4)-8 (c)(3 )(v )(B ); B erger, 33 8 F .3d at 76 0 ; E sd en , 229 F. 3d at 170. W e a s s u me th a t th e p r o c e e d i n g s o n r e ma n d n e e d n o t be 18 l e ng thy o r bu r de ns ome s i nc e the di s t r i c tc ou rt ha s a l r e a dy re c ei ved e xt en s i ve bri efi ng on pos s ibl e fut ur e i nt er es tc re di t i ng m eth od s. T he d istrict cou rt sim p ly n eed s t o select a n in terest c re dit i ng m ethod wi th the unde rs t andi ng thati ti s i n c har ge ofthe dec i s i on. 6- 22- 11

C. Metho d o fCa l cul at i ng F ut ur e I nt er es t Cr edi ts o n Re m an d I n v i e w o fthe ab o v e c o nc l us i o ns , we b e l i e v e the b est pr o ce dur e is to r ev er se the di st r i ctc o ur t to the e xt en t th ati t he l d tha t so m e defer en ce was o wed t o the P l a n d e f e n d a n t s ’ p r e f e r r e d c a l c ul a t i o n me th o d
. We ca nno t be c er ta i n tha t th i s be l i efdi d no t i nf o r m the co ur t’ s se l ec ti o n o fthe “ fi ve - y ea r a ve r ag e” a ppr o ac h. Af t e r a l l, thi s me tho do l o g y o r i g i na t e d wi th the P l an defe nd ants. 17 Forthe f or ego i ng r ea sons, we A F F I R M in p ar t, R EV ERSE i n pa r ta nd R EMA ND for p ro ceedi ngs co nsi ste nt with 18 th i s o pi ni o n.