Ci rc ui tJ udge Ter en c e T. E vans d i ed on August10, 20 11 , an d  di d notpar t i c i pat e i n the d ecision ofthi s c as e, whi c h i s be i ng re so lv ed b y a q u o ru m o f th e p a n el u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 4 6 (d ).



## 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 o. 10

- 2272 M Y LA N AUMA N , J ANE R OLLER, an d M ICHAEL L O UG HERY, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. A BBOTT L ABO RATO RIES an d H O SPIRA, I NC ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04 C7199

—Robert W . G ettleman, Judge .
A RGUED J UNE 6, 2011

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 3, 2012

Befo re K ANN E , E VANS , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges .  S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Abbo tt L aborat or i es deci ded to “s pi n” i ts Hos pi ta lPr o duct s Di vi si o n ( “HPD”), c r ea ting a se par at e co m pan y call ed H o spi r a. Pr i o r t o the s pi n,2 N o. 10

- 2272 H PD e m pl o y ee s ha d a cc es s to A bbo tt ’ s pen si o n pl an . Aft e r th e s p i n, h o we v e r, H P D e mp l o y e e s b e c a me e mplo yee s o fH os p ira , w hi ch did noto ffera pensi on pl an but in st ead o ffer ed an enhanced 40 1( k) pl an with a n em p loy er -m at c h in g p ro vis ion . Th e t er m s o f th e s p in i ncl ud ed re ci proca lno-hi re pol i ci es, m eani ng tha t for tw o years p ost-sp in, A bbo tt w ou ld n ot hire H osp ira em p loyee s or reti rees, an d H osp ira w ou ld n ot hire Ab b o t te mp l o y e e s o r r e t i r e e s . T h u s , w h e n H P D e mp l o y e e s c e a s e d e mp l o y me n tw i th A b b o t ta n d b e c a me em plo yee s o fH ospir a, thei r nonvest ed pensi on r i ghts i n the Abbo ttpl anwere eli m i na te d. In a ddi ti o n, re tir em en t-e ligib le H P D em p loy ee s w er e e ffec tiv ely p re ve n te d from ret i r i n g fro m A b b ot t b efo re th e s p in to b eg i n c o l l ec tinga n Abb o ttpe ns i o n, the n j o i ni ng H ospi ra . The nam ed pla i ntiffs here r epres ent a cer ti fi ed cl ass ofA bbot t e m plo yee s t er m i nated ( though r eem plo yed by H ospi ra ) as a re su lt ofthe spi n. They a l l ege d that A bbot t vi o l at ed § 51 0 o fthe Em pl o y ee Re ti r ement I nc o m e S ec ur i tyAct (“E R I SA”) b y us i ngthe s pi n a nd the no- hi re pol i cy to getr i d ofunw anted pensi on l i ability. Theya l s o c l a i med tha tHo s pi r a u s e d the n o - hi r e p o l i cy to deterH PD em plo yee s fro m exer ci si ng pensi on b e ne fi t s b e f o r e the s pi n. F i na l l y, the y a l l e g e d t hat A bbot t br eached i ts fi du ci ar y duty by f ai l i ng to disc l ose pri orto the sp in t h at H ospi ra would not offer pensi on be nefi ts. A ftera ni ne- day be nch t ria l, the district courtent e r ed j ud gm en t for A bbo tt an d H osp ira o n a l lc o un t s . T he p l a i nt i ff s a pp e a l e d.N o. 10

- 2272 3 W e affi r m . The § 5 10 c lai m s fai l ed be ca us e Abbo tta nd H osp ira d id n o t act w ith th e requ isi te inten t to i nt erfere w i th the pl ai ntiffs’ pensi on be nefi ts. The di str i ct j ud ge sp ec ifica lly fou n d th at em p loy e e be n efit s p lay ed n o ro le in the de cision to spin H PD and i m p lem en t the no-hire po l i cy, a nd the se fi ndi ng s ar e no t cl ea r l y e r r o ne o us . The bre ach- of

- fi du ci ar y- du ty cl ai m f ai l ed beca use Abbott ha d no th i ngt o do wi ththe Hos pi r a be ne fi ts p l ana nd because A bbot t r epor ted truthful l y t o H PD em plo yee s that the i r b e ne fi t s mi g htc ha ng e a ft e rthe s pi n. T he se fi nd i ngs, to o, ar e s up port ed by the e vi dence.

I . B a c kg r o und A b b ot t L ab or at or ies is a m ajor p h ar m ac eu tic als com pany w i th headquarte rs i n nor ther n I l l i n ois
. I ts H ospi talPro du cts Divi si on ( “H PD ”) , wh i l e w el les tabl i shed and p rofi tabl e, was re sour ce intensi ve and had a s l ow gro w th r ate , wh er eas A b bot t pr efer re d high gr o wth. Onthe a dv i c e o fs e v e r a lfi na nc i a la dv i s o r s, A bbot t deter m i ned that H PD and Abbott w oul d be w or th m ore separ ate than tog ether

. S o A bbot t deci ded to
“ s pi n ” HP D, me a n i n gth a tHP D wo u l d b e c o me i t s o wn com pany, to be cal l ed H ospi ra, with e ach Abbott shar ehol der r ecei vi ng pro r ata shar es ofthe new co m pany. A bbot t ap p ro ved the spi n i n J une 200 3 a nd announced i t publ i cl y tw o m onths l ate r. The spi n w oul d ta ke pla ce o n Apr i l3 0, 2 00 4, a nd Hospira woul d b e l i ve the ne xt d a y . In th e a n n o u n c e me n tA b b o t ts t a t e d th a tH P D e mplo yee s would r em ai n on A b b ot t’ s v ar i ous b enefi ts p lans u nt ilth e sp in. A fter the sp in the new H osp ira4 N o. 10

- 2272

em plo yee s would co nti nu e t o re cei ve the s am e be nefi ts thro ugh a tr ansi ti onal pla n setup by Abbott but m anage d by H osp ira u n t il t he end of 2004
. A t tha t po int H osp ira em plo yee s would r ecei ve benefi ts thro ugh a no t- yet
cr ea te d Hos pi r a pl an, whi chH o spi r a m an ag ement woul d de si g n po st
- spin. Cr i t i c a lt o th e s u c c e s s o fth e s p i n wa s r e t a i n i n gthe ro u gh ly 15 ,00 0 H P D em p loy ee s at H os p ira . A s a res u lt and consi ste nt w i th externaladvi ce, A bbot t: ( 1) pro hibi ted H PD e m pl o y ee s ta pped f o r Hos pi r a fr o m t ran sf er r i ng w i thi n A bbot t; ( 2) announced thatf ort w o year s a fter th e sp in, A bbo tt w o u ld not h ire an yon e w ho left H o spi r a; a nd ( 3) a nno unc ed th atfor t w o y ea r s afte r the spi n, H ospi ra would not hi re anyo n e w h o l eft Abbott. The questi on then ar ose w h et h er an e xcepti on would be m ad e for retirem en t-e li gible H PD em p loyees. Sp ecifica lly, co u ld th es e e m p loy ee s re tir e fro m A b b ot t, be g in r e c eiv in g t h eir p en sio n s, an d th en j oin H os p ira ? U ltim ate l y, A b b ot t announced p re - spi n that thi s would not be pos sibl e. This deci si on was m ade f orse ver alr eas ons. Fi rs t, A bbot t’ s t ax advi sor s be l i eve d i t would vi ol ate ta x l aw a nd the r efo r e ca us e th e r el ev an t be ne fi ts pl an s to l ose thei r tax- defe rr ed sta tus. A notherr eas on had to do wi thpr o duct i vi ty: S o m e empl o y ee s r ec ei vingb o tha p en sion an d a salary for the sam e j ob m ight not w ork a s h a r d. Even m or e cr i ti calto the success o f t h e s pin was r etaini ng ce rt ai n H P D e x ecuti ves at H ospi ra . Rete nti on bon us es are co m m on in th ese circu m stan ces. A bbo tt’s b e n e fi t s pl a n o ffe r e d a v a l u ab l e r e t i r e e me d i c a lp r o g r a m,N o. 10

- 2272 5 provi ding m edi calbene fi ts t o vest ed em plo yee s e ven after l eaving A bbot t. Pre- spi n, i t w as unknow n w h et her H ospi ra would o ffera si m i l arbene fi t, wh i ch w as unsettl i ng to fi ve keyH PD exec uti ve s w h o w er e no t y et v e s t e d in the p l a n. T o a l l a y the i r c o nc e r ns a nd p r o v i de a r ete nti on incenti ve, A bbot t s i m plyga ve the e xecuti ves re tenti on bonuses i n an am ount equal to their exp ecte d future m edi calcl ai m s. A fterthe spin H ospi ra approv ed a b enefi ts pla n that di d n o to ffe r p e ns i o n o r r e t i r e e me di c a lb e ne fi t s . Ins t e a d, the Hospir a pl an o ffer ed an enhanced 40 1(k) pla n w i th gener ous e m plo yer - m atchi ng pro vi si ons. H PD- tu r ne d- H o spi r a e m pl o y ee s My l a Na u ma n, J ane Rol l er, and M i chaelLougher y fi l ed thi s l aw sui t o n behal fo fthem sel ves and a pro posed cl ass ofem plo yee s w hose em plo ym ent at A bbot t w as ter m i nated as a consequence ofthe sp in . They al l ege d fo ur co unts: ( I ) A bbot t ca r r i ed o utthe s pi n t r an sa ct i o n t o i nt er fer e wi th the b en efit s ofH PD em plo yee s in vi ol ati on o f§ 510 of E R I SA ; ( I I) A b b o tt d esigned the n o-hire poli cy to interf er e wi th the b e ne fi t s o fHPD e mpl o y e e s i n v i o l a t i on of § 510 of ER I SA ; ( I I I) H osp ira d esigned the n o-hire p o l i c y t o i n t e r fe r e w i th th e b e n e fi t s o fH P D

- t u r ne dH o spi r a empl o y ees i n v i o l at i o n o f§ 5 10 o fERI S A; a nd ( I V) A bbot t a nd H ospi ra br eached fid u c iary duti es und er ERI S A b y f a i l i n gt o d i s c l o s e ma t e r i a li n f o r ma t i o nab o ut the Ho s pi r a b e ne fi t s p l an. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tc e r t i fi e d a6 N o. 10

- 2272

The c l as s f or Count s I, I I , an d I V was defi ne d as “[ a] l l e m pl oy- 1 ees of A b b ott w ho w ere pa rticip an ts in the A b b ot t B e n e fit P lan s w ho se em p loy m en t w i t h A b b o t t w as term ina ted

. . . as a res ult ofthe s pin- o ff.” F or Cou nt I II a s ub cl ass w as cer ti fie d and defined a s class m em bers “w ho w ere el igible f or re ti rem en t un d er t h e A b b ott B en efit P lan s on the d ate o f the ir term ina tion s. ” O nly L ou g he ry rep resen ts the su b class. cl as s, di smi ss ed Cou ntI V a g ains t H o spi r a be ca us e th e

1 alle ge d fi du ci ar y b re ach o ccurr ed pri orto i ts exi ste nce, and denied th e parti es’ cr oss - m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm en t. Af te r a b en cht r i al, the c o ur t f o und fo r the de fen dants o n al lcl ai m s, ente ring co m prehensi ve fi nd i n gs o f fac t a n d co n c lu sio n s o f law , w h i c h w e w ill d isc u ss in mo r e d e t a i lb e l o w.

I I . Discussi on T he plaintiff s ap p eal from a j ud gm en t ent ered after a bench tr i al ; we re vi ew f actualfi nd i ngs forcl earer ro r an d leg al c on c lu sio n s d e n ov o. Kel ley v. C hi. Pa rk D is t. , 63 5 F.3 d 290, 29 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. A f actualfi nd i ng i s cl ea rly e r r o n e o u s “ o n l y i fwe a r e fi r ml y c o n v i n c e d a ft e r we re vi ew al lo fthe evi dence thata m i stake has be en m ade. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. H il l , 645 F.3d 900 , 907 (7th C ir. 2011 ).

A . ERISA § 510 Se cti on 5 10 ofERIS A , ti tl ed “I nter fer ence w i th pro tect ed ri ghts, ” s tat es i n re l evantpart :N o. 10

- 2272 7

The p lai nti ff s chall enge the dist ri ctcourt’ s concl usi on, based 2 on G ro ss v. FB L Fi nanci alSer vi ce s, Inc. , 5 5 7 U .S. 167 ( 2009) , that § 51 0 r eq u ir es b u t-fo r c a u sa tio n . G ross i nt er pre t ed the Age D iscrim ina tion in E m p loy m en t A ct, b u t w e ha v e ap p lied its rea son ing in o the r con texts. See, e . g. , Ser af i nn v. Local722 , 59 7 F
. 3d 9 08 , 91 5 ( 7th Cir

. 20 10 ) ( Labor M ana ge m en tRepor t i ng a n d D isc lo su re A ct ); Serw atka v. R ockw el l A uto m at i on, Inc. , 591 F. 3d 957, 961- 62 ( 7th Cir

. 2010) ( A m eri cans w ith D is abili ti es A ct ); F a i r l ey v . An d r e ws , 578 F. 3d 518, 525- 26 ( 7th C ir
. 2009) ( § 1 98 3 F irst A m en dm en t )
. I n F ai rl ey w e said tha t “u nless 

### (continued...) I t s hal lbe unlawfulf orany p er son to disc harg e, fi ne, su sp end, expel, di sci pline, o r disc ri m i nate aga i nst a parti ci pant orbene fi ci ar y forexer ci si ng anyr i ght t o wh i c h h e i s e n t i t l e d u n d e r th e p r o v i s i o n s o fa n e mpl o y ee b en efi t pl an. . . o r f o r the pur po se o fi nt er fer i ng w ith th e a tt ain m en t o f an y rig h t t o w h ich su c h p ar tic ip an t m ay be c om e e n tit led u n d er th e p lan

. . . . 29 U
. S. C. § 1 140. Th is p rovi si on pro hibi ts re tal i ati on f or th e ex er ci se o fpl anb en efi ts a nd i nt er fer en ce wi ththe att ai nm ent o ftho se benefi ts. B u t pl ai nti ff s cl ai m i ng a vi ol ati on o f§ 51 0 “m ust e stabl i sh m or e than a l oss o f ben efi ts; th ey m us t d em ons trate th at t he ir em p loyers [ acte d] with the speci fi c i nten t of p re venting o r re tal i ating f orthe use o fbene fi ts. ” Lindem a n n v. M obil O il Corp
. , 14 1 F
. 3d 290, 29 5 (7t h C i r. 19 98)
. In other w or ds, em plo yer s m ust have b ee n m oti vate d by “ a desi re to frust ra te att ai nm ent o r enj oym ent o fbenefi t r i ghts. ” Is be ll v. All s t at e Ins . Co. , 418 F. 3d 788, 796 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( quotation m arks om itted ). 28 N o. 10

- 2272



### (...continued) a s tatute .
. . prov ides otherwise , dem onst rat ing b u t- f or caus ati on is part ofthe plai nti ff’s b urd en i n alls uits und er fede ra l l aw. ” 5 78 F. 3d a t 5 25

- 26
. The i s s ue “tur ns onthe l ang u ag e of the statu te an d the p resen ce or ab senc e of te x t ak in to th a t o fT i tle V II w h ic h au th o ri z es m ix ed -m o tiv e c la im s.” S erw atk a, 59 1 F .3d at 96 1. Section 51 0 do es no t exp licitly p erm it such c lai m s, s o on the s tr en g th o fthi s cas el aw , but- f or caus at i o n i s p r o b a b l y r e q u i r e d. We n e e d n o t d e c i de th e i s s u e , h o wev er, bec au se the d istrict j u d g e a s the trier o f fact spe cifically f ou nd th a ta de s i r e t o f r us t r a t e be ne fi t s pl a ye d no r ol e i n the d efend an ts’ actio ns, and tha t find ing is no t clearly erro ne ou s. T h e p lain tiffs ’ th eo ry is th at A b b ot t w an te d to rid i t s e l f o f s o me o f i t s pe ns i o n l i ab i l i t y s o i t s pu n H PD, knowing that H os p ira would not provi de a s i m i l ar pla n. On thi s v i ew the A bbot t no
- hi re pol i cy en su red that H PD em plo yee s c ou ld n ot si m plyr etur n to A bbot t an d r et ain th ei r pen si o n r i g ht s. But afte r a le ng thy bench tr i al, the d ist ri ct j ud ge f ound that “ em plo yee b en efit s s im p ly h ad n o p ar t o f [th e d ec isi o n t o s p in H PD ]
. ” The pl ai n tiffs have notdi re ctl y c hal l enged that fi nd ing on ap p eal, and i n an y case, i t w as no t c le a r error. The j udg e su ppo r te d th is g en er alfi ndi ngwi thmany spe ci fi c fi ndi ng s r el at i ngt o wi tn es s tes ti m o ny a nd do cum entar y e vi dence. Fo r exam ple , the j ud ge f ou n d that “[e]ver y wi tn es s who te st i fi ed att r i als ta te d tha t th e spi n de c i s i o n ha d no thing t o do wi th e mpl o y e e bene

fits ,” an d th at “[t ]h e H P D sp inrat ion ale w as rep ea te d ly docum ented and em plo yee bene fi ts w as nevero nce m en tio n ed as a fac to r inth e s p ind ec isio n .”N o. 10

- 2272 9 T he plaintiff s also argue d t h a t the H osp ira no-h ire po l i c y wa s de s i g ne d t o i nt e r fe r e wi th e mpl o y e e b e ne f i ts. Speci fi cal l y, the pla i nti ff s a l l ege d that the pol i cy w as i nten ded to deterr eti re m ent- el i gibl e HP D em plo yee s fro m r eti ring fro m A bbot t t o sta rtthe fl ow ofpensi on b en e f i t s b ec au se if th ey d id , th ey co u ld n otsu b se q u en tly j oi n H ospi ra . B u t th e dist ri ct j ud ge f ound that “ [ t] he nohire policy w as no t ‘m otivated by an inte n t ion to i nt erfer e wi tha ny o fthe e m pl o y ee s[ ’ ] b en efi ts
. ’ ” Ag ai n, the pla i nti ff s hav e no t di re ctl y c hal l enged that fi nd i ng o n appeal, and ag ain, i t was notcl earer ro r. The j ud ge f ound that the no- hi re pol i cy w as cre at ed to pro m ote st ab i l i tya nd pr o duct i vi tya t bo thc om pan i es po st
- spin; these fi nd i ngs a re wellsupporte d by the ev i dence. On app ealthe pla i nti ff s c h an ge cour se and argue that the c om panies d i scr i m i nated ag ai nst Abbott re ti re es by c o l l u d i n gt o p r e cl ude t h e i r e mpl o y me n ta tHo s p i r a . As w e hav e exp lai ne d , un d er the n o -h ire p oli cy, H osp ira w oul d refuse t o hi re A bbot t r eti re es. The co m panie s adopted the pol i cy because ( am ong otherr eas ons) they th o ug httha t al l o wing e m pl o y ee s to c o l l ec t a r eti r ement pensi on fro m A bbot t anda fullsa l ar y fro m H ospi ra f or the v e r y s a me j o b c o ul d l e a d t o p r o du c t i v i t y p r o b l e ms. The pla i nti ff s a sse rtthatthes e f acts sugg estdi scr i m i n ati on ba sed o n an i nvi dio us st er eotype that r eti re es ar e l azy . T his ne w th e o r y soun d s li ke a claim of d iscrim inatory f ai l ure to hi re , wh ich i s unusuali n the § 5 10 conte xt. Re g ar dl es s, thi s ca se i s ani m pr o perv eh icl e f o r s ucha c l a i m be c a us e the na med p l a i nt i ff s di d not re ti re fro m Abb o t ta nd w erei n f ac t hi r ed byHos pira. So the a r g u-10 N o. 10

- 2272

m ent m ust be that the com panie s u se d the t hre ato fdi sc rim i nati on

— a s e mbo di e d in Ho s pi r a ’ s n o - hi r e p o l i cy

— o deterHPD empl oyees fr o m r et i r i ng . Butthi s l ea ds us bac k to the d istri ct j ud ge’s find ing tha t t h e no-hire pol i cy wa s n o tmo t i v a t e d b y a n i nt e ntt o i nt e r fe r e wi th em p loy ee be n efit s. Insh or t, h ow ev er th e a rg u m en t is fra m ed, the fund am entalpro bl em i s that § 51 0 requ i re s a s p ec ific in te n t, p ro of of w h ich is lac kin g h er e. See Is be ll, 418 F.3d at79 6; Li nde m ann , 14 1 F
. 3d at 295.

B. Breach ofFid u ciary D u ty “A clai m f or breach of fi d uc iary du ty un d er ER I SA i s o nl y v al i d against a ‘ fi du ci ar y.’ ” B a k er v. K ing sley, 38 7 F. 3d 6 4 9 , 6 6 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )
. A “ fi du c i a r y ” i s “ a p e r s on who ex er ci se s au th o r i tyo r discret i o n o ve r the a dm i ni str ati on o fa pla n, but onl y when perf or m i ng tho se functio n s.” Be ac h v
. Com m onwe al t h Edi s on Co. , 38 2 F
. 3d 656, 65 8 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ) (cit in g 2 9 U .S.C . § 10 02 (21 )(A )) ; see also P egram v. Her drich , 530 U
. S. 211, 226 (200 0 ) (“I n ev ery ca se cha r g i ngb r ea cho fERI S A fi duci ary duty, . . . the thre shol d questi on i s . . . wh ether[ the defendant] w as actin g as a fi d uc iary ( th at is, w as p erform ing a fi d uc iary fun ction) w he n tak ing the a ction su bj ect to com p lai nt
. ”). Thu s, fi du ci ar y duti es ar e “ pla n-s peci fi c. ” B each , 38 2 F. 3d at 658. The pla i nti ff s a l l eged that pri orto the spi n, A bbot t he l pe d c r e a t e the Ho s pi r a b e ne fi ts pla n a nd thu s h a d a fi du ci ar y duty to disc l ose the H ospi ra p lan ’s d eta i l s t o em plo yee s. They cl ai m ed that i nstea d ofdi scl osing wh atN o. 10

- 2272 11 i t knew , A bbot t m i sl ed em plo yee s into bel i evi ng tha t th e H o spi r a pl anwoul d b e si m i l art o the Abbo ttpl an . The dis tr i ct judge m ade se ver alf actualfi nd i ngs that defe ate d thi s cl ai m . Speci fi cal l y, the j ud ge f ound that presp in, A b b ott con sisten tly tol d em p loyees tha t H osp ira w oul d set up i ts own em plo yee -benefi ts plan a n d that i ts b en efi ts c o ul d b e en ti r ely di ffer en t fr o m Abbo tt ’ s. The j ud ge al so f ound that co nsi ste nt with these r ep re sentati o ns , Hos pi r a i nde ed m ade its own dec i si o ns r eg ar di ng empl o y ee b en efi ts a fte r the s pi n. Acco r d i ng l y, the j udg e co nc l ude d tha t Abbo tto wed no duty t o the pl ainti ff s wi thr es pec t to the Hos pi r a pl an . Ev ena ss um i ng othe rwis e, th e j ud ge f ound that Abbott com m i tte d n o b re a c h be c au se its co m m u n ica tio n s w er e e n tir ely tr u th fu l. T h e p lai n t i ffs d isp u te th at H os p ira m ad e it s o w n d ec isio n s a b ou t b e n efit s a fte r th e s p in . Th is a rg u m en t is base d on an infe re nce the y i nvi te us to draw fr om Ab b o t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o o ffe r e x e c u t i v e r e t e n t i o n b o n u s e s . As w e h av e n ot ed , sev er al k ey H P D e x ec u tiv es w er e p aid re tenti o n b o nu s e s i n a n a mou nte qu a lt o the v a l ue o f A bbo tt’s retir ee m ed ical p rogram , a bene fi t t h a t H osp ira u ltim a t e ly d id n otoffe r. T h e p lain tiffs arg u e t h at th is ev i den ce s ug g es ts th at Abbo ttkne w the de ta i l s o fthe H ospi ra pl an befor e the spi n to ok pla ce. Butthe di st r i ctj udg e m ade s pec i fi c fi ndi ng s r ej ect i ng thi s e xact argum ent. The j ud ge f ound that a t the ti m e o f the b onus deci si ons, H ospi ra’s bene fi ts pla n had not y et been cre a t e d , so i t w as u nk now n w he th er H osp ira w ou ld o ffer retir ee m ed ical ben efi ts. T his w as a con cern12 N o. 10

- 2272 to the e xecuti ves w ho were not yetv es te d in the r eti re e m edi calpro gr am . A bbot t’ s deci si on t o offerexe c u tive re tenti on bo nuse s w as a r esponse to thi s uncer tainty. Th a ti s , t o o ff s e tthe fe a r s o fk ey ex e c ut i v e s a nd p r o v i de an i ncenti ve f orthem to r em ai n , A bbot t s i m plyga ve r ete nt i o n b o nus es e qua lt o the b en efi ts ’ futur e va l ue . The j u d ge ’s fin d in g s on th is p oin t a re su p p or te d by th e t es tim ony of A bbot t executi ves and a re not cl early erroneo us. B ec au se th e p lan w as cr ea te d by H o s p i r a a fte r th e s p in and w i thout i npu t fro m A bbot t, the conclus ion that A bbot t had no fi du ci ar y duty w i th r espectto the pla n n at u ra lly follo w s. See 29 U .S.C . § 10 02 (21 ) (A ); B each , 382 F. 3d at 658. A ssu m i ng the exi ste nce o fa fi du ci ar y duty, the j ud ge al so f ound that Abbott com m i tte d no br each b ecause i t di d not m ate ri al l y m i sr epres ent anythi ng ab out the no tyet
- devel oped H ospi ra pl an. A bbot t t ol d em plo ye es that H ospi ra w oul d c re ate i ts own benefi ts p lan after th e s p inan d th at th e H os p ira p lan co u ld be en tir ely d ifferent from the A bbo tt p lan. T ho s e s tatem en ts w ere enti re l y t rue; nothi ng i n the re cor d sugges ts othe rwis e. A FFI RMED .

2- 3- 12