## 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. 08

- 2885 I N RE : B ARRY G. R ADC LI FFE , D ebto r-A pp ellee. A PPE AL OF : I NTERNATI ONA L P AI NT ER SAN D A LLI ED T RAD ES I ND USTRY P EN S I ON F UND

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on.

No . 07 C285

—Phi li p P. Si mon, Judg e.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 13, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 23, 2009

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NER, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Thi s is an appeal fro m an o rder o f t he di s t r i c t c o ur t, i n t ur n a ffi r mi ng a j ud g m ent o f the b ankr up tcy cour t i n an adver sar y pr oce edi ng. Barr y G. Radcl i ff e o w ned a co m p an y c al l ed Glas s S er v i c e , I n c . As p a r to fa l a b o r a g r e e me n tth e c o mpa ny contr ibuted to the I nter nati onalPai nter s a nd A l l ied T r ade s I ndus tr y Pe ns i o n F und. W he n the c o m pan y ’s paym ents becam e del i nquent, Radcli ff e s i gned a perso nal2 N o. 08

- 2885

T he d i s t ri c tj udge ( t he Honor abl e Phi l i p P. Si m on) s etthe 1 s t age i n th e fi r s tp a r a g r a p h o fh i s 2 8

- p a g e d e c i s i o n b y n o t i ng ( c or re c t l y, w e t hi nk) thatRadcl i f f e was a f our - fl us he r who “did n’ t s tand behin d his personal guaranty and s o he s ti f f ed th e fu n d .” guar an te e to pay the co ntributi ons, but he f ai l ed to do s o. The F un d s ue d f o r b r e a c h o fc o nt r a c ta nd o b t a i ne d a defa ultj ud gm ent ag ainst hi m . H e decl ar ed bankr up tcy, but notbef or e r equesti ng hi s o w n pensi on be nefi ts f ro m the F und

. Th e Fu nd ag re ed that he was enti tl ed to be ne fi ts b utt o l d hi m tha t i t woul d wi thho l d pa y m en t an d a ppl y the a m o unt s wi thhe l d t o hi s deb t ar i sing f ro m the defa ultj ud gm ent. R ad cli ffe inform ed th e F un d of h is belief tha t t he “setoff” vi o l at ed th e au to m at i c st aytha t to o keff ec t when he fi l ed f orbank ruptcy ( see1 1 U. S
. C. § 3 62)
. The F un d, n ev er th ele ss , w ith h eld p ay m en t. R ad c lif f e filed th is ad ve rs ar y a c tio n to en for c e t h e s ta y a n d h e p re va iled in the b ankr up tcy cour t. I nternati onalwas or dered to pay co m pen sa to r y da m ag es , i nt er es t, puni ti ve da m ag es , a nd at to r ne y f ees. I n a de ci si o n wi thc o ns i der ab l e fl ai r, the 1 dist ri ct cour t affi rm ed. W e com m end both the b ankruptcy and the di str i ct c ourt s f orthe cl ar ity ofthei r discussion o f t hese i ssues . A nd we agr ee w i th the m ev en th ou gh w e are so m ew h at u n ea sy w ith th e e n d r es u lt w hi ch gi ves a s eem i ngl y undeserved windfal l to M r. Radcl i f f e. I t i s no t ha r d t o g ue s s tha t thi s s i t ua t i o n pr e s ents a th ick et o fle ga l issu es in w h ich , i f on e is n ot ca re fu l, itN o. 08

- 2885 3

w oul d be poss ibl e t o get h op eles sl y t angl ed. Fo r that reason , w e ignore side issue s, su ch as stan d ing (Rad cli ffe ha s st an di ng ) a nd mutua l i ty( a co nc eptthr o wn ab o ut but n ev er r eal l y g ro und ed i n the case ) , and address w hat we se e t o be the di sposi ti ve i ssues bef or e us. Th e fi rs t i ssue i s whether the s eto ff( orfre eze o n paym ents as the F und te rm s i t) v i ol ate s the auto m ati c st ay unde r 1 1 U. S
. C. § 3 62 ( a) ( 6)
. I fi t do es , the s ec o nd i ss ue i s whethe r th e st ay sh o ul d ha ve be en l i fte d to al l o w the setoff. I nv olved i n th at issue is w he t h er the set off vi ol ate s the anti

- al i enati on pro vi si ons ofthe Em p loy ee Re t i r e men tI nc o me S e c ur i t y Ac t( ERI S A) , 2 9 U. S
. C. § 1 056( d)( 1)
. I fi t doe s, ther e w oul d be no re aso n to l i ft the st ay. On then to the fi rs t i ssue. I m m edi at el y upo n the fi l i ngo fa b an k r upt cype ti ti o n, § 3 62 oft h e b an kr u p tc y c od e p ro vid es for a n au to m at ic stay ofeff or ts outsi de the bankr up tcy proce edi ng to c o l l e c t d eb ts from th e b an kr u p t d eb to r. Aie l l o v. Pr ovi di an Fi n. Corp. , 23 9 F
. 3d 876 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. Bring in g al l debts wi t h i n th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o fth e b a n k r u p t c y co ur ta l l o ws f orthe or derl y di str ibuti on o fas sets. Ho ltk a m p v . Littlef i e l d (In re Hol t kam p) , 6 69 F
. 2d 50 5 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 2)
. The st ayp reve nt s pr e- pet i ti o n c r edi to r s f r o m t ak i nga ny a c t ion to co llec t t h eir d eb ts
. In reVi t r e o u s S t e e l Pro d s . Co. , 91 1 F
. 2 d 1 2 2 3 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 )
. B u t i n c a s e s wh e r e th e st ay w ill sim p ly d ela y t h e in ev ita b le

— that i s, the cre dit or w i l l be al l owed at som e poi nt to col l ect his d ebt

— th e ba nk r upt cyc o de i n § 3 62 ( d) pe r m i ts r el i effrom the autom ati c st ay on “ the r equest ofa p ar ty i n i nter est aft er n ot ice an d a h ea rin g . . . .”4 N o. 08

- 2885 The dis tr i ct c ourtf ound that the Fund’s co nd uct vi ol ate d the pro vi sion o f the sta y f ound in § 3 62( a) ( 6) , wh i ch p ro h ibit s “ an y a c t t o c olle c t, as se ss , or rec ov er a c laim aga i nst the debto r that ar ose bef or e the co m m encem ent” of th e ca se . T h e pr oh ibit ion in c lu d es th re at s o fim m e d iat e a c tio n by cr ed ito rs . M at t e rof D uke, 79 F. 3d 43 ( 7th Cir
. 19 96)
. W hat the F u nd di d here wh i ch, i n the dist ri ct cour t’ s vi ew, v i o l at ed th e st aywas t o i nf o r m Ra dcl i ffe by l ett erthathis “m on thl y pensi on be nefi ts w i l l be off setag ai nst [ hi s] d eb t to the Pensi on F und unti l such tim e a s t h e jud gm en t h as be en sa tis fied .” T h e F und cl ai m s that the pensi on be nefi ts w er e no t p rop erty of th e estate and therefore th e off set w as p rop er. It ar g u es th at th e le tt er it se n t t o R ad c liffe w as n ot in vi ol ati on o f§ 362 (a)(6) bec ause i t was notco er ci ve or ha r as sing . Re l y in gpr i m ar i l y o n Cit ize ns Bank o f M aryl and v. St r um pf

, 51 6 U.S
. 16 ( 1995 ) , the Fund says that no th i ng pr o hibi ts i t f r o m f r ee zi ng pay m en ts until th e v a l i di t y o fthe o f f s e ti s de t e r mi ne d. The si tuati on here diff er s in at l eas t tw o m ate ri alr espect s f r o m St r um pf

. F i r s t, i n St r um pf

th er e w as an u n d en iab le r i g htt o a s et o f f

. The b an kha d a right underM ar y l an d law to set offa defau lted loan against S t r u m p f’ s checki ng ac count ba l ance. T h e Cour t poi nted out that, und er sect i on 553( a) of the bankr up tcy code, “w hatev er ri ght o fse to ff otherwis e e xi sts i s pre ser ved i n bankruptcy. ” Here, as we shal l so on s ee, t here was no r i ght t o a se to f f

. S ec o ndl y , i n St r um pf , ev en tho ugh, exce pt f or th e s ta y, t h e b a n k h ad a c lea r rig h t t o a se to ff, it m er ely pl ac ed ana dm i ni st r at i ve ho l d o n the c he ck i nga cc o untN o. 08

- 2885 5 unti l i t co uld s eekr el i effro m the autom atic s ta y, w hi ch it in fact sou gh t fi ve d ays l ater. T he C ou rt found that there was no v i o l at i o n o fthe s ta y b ecaus e th e ac ti o n the ba nkt o o kwas no t a se to ffa t all

. T he b an kwas ho l di ng th e p ay m en t o n ly fo r a b rie f p er iod of tim e w h ile it soughtr el i effrom the sta y. I t di d not “ pu rpor t per m ane nt l y t o r edu ce respo nde nt ’ s ac co untb al an ce b y the am ou n t o f th e d efa u lte d loan .” I n ourcas e, th e F und di d not m ove f orr el i effro m the s tay unti l si x m onths had passed. I t had r eq u es ted th at th e stay b e m od ified in its answ er to Rad cli ffe’s co mpl a i n t, b u te v e n th i s c a me t wo mo n th s a ft e r t he F und’ s l et te r t o Ra dcl i ff e st at i ngi ts i nt en tio n t o wi th

h old p ay m en t a n d w ell aft er th e firs t p ay m en t w as , i n f ac t, wi thhe l d. The b an k r upt cyc o ur t f o und tha t th e Fund’s re quest i n i ts answ er to the com pla i nt w as n ot suf fi ci ent t o m odi fy the st ay, es peci al l y s i nce no affi rm ati o n a ct i o n was r eque st ed atthe t i m e r eg ar di nga ny r i g htt o a s et o f f

. The ban k r upt cyc o ur t f o und e ve n the u ltim at e m ot ion for re lief fro m th e s ta y t o b e “ w oe fu lly i na dequa te unde r the r equi r ement s o fF ed. R. Ban k

. P. 90 13 , ” an d i t was f i l ed o nl y a fte r the c o ur t r equi r ed i t. The F un d we n tf a r b e y o n d p l a c i n ga t e mpo r a r y h o l d o n the be ne fi ts s o tha t i t coul d pr o m ptl y s ee kr el i effr o m the st ay . Ra t h e r , it re fu se d to p ay th e p en sio n an d d id nothi ng ab ou t th e s tay unti l urg ed to do s o by the c ourt
. The Fund’s com pari son ofit s si tuati on t o St r um pf i s way offthe m ar k. Furtherm or e, the Fund’s l ett erto Radcl i ff e i s i n vi ola

t i o n o f§ 3 6 2 ( a) ( 6)
. As the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o r r e c t l y n o t e d,6 N o. 08

- 2885 t he F un d h e l d a l l the c a rds. Wi tho uts e e k i ngc o ur ta pprova l, i t s i m plym ade a unil ate ra l deci si on not t o pay the pensi on be nefi ts. I t i nform ed Radcli ff e that i t di d not need cour t a pp ro valbec ause i t d id n ot bel i eve the bankruptcy l aw appli ed to i t. W e di scer n no abuse ofdi scr eti on i n the deci si on that the Fun d v i ol ate d the auto

m ati c st ay. But be ca us e damag es ar e o nl y av ai l ab l e for a wi l l ful vio lat ion , s ee s ec tio n 362 ( h) ofthe code, the questi on r e ma i n s a s t o w h e th e r th e F u n d a c t e d w i l l ful l y . We think i t’ s cl earthati t di d. A wil l ful vi ol ati on does not r equi r e spe ci fi c i nt en t to v i o l at e th e stay; i t i s su ffi ci en t th atthe c r edi to r t ak es que st i o nable a ct i o n de spi te the aw ar en es s o f a p en d in g b an kr u p t c y p ro c ee d in g. Pri cev. U nite d S t a t e s (In re P rice) , 42 F .3d 10 68 (7t h C ir. 19 94 ). I t i s i nd i sputabl e that th e F und act ed w i th kno w l edge o f t h e b a n k r u p t c y p r o c e e d i n g . I t s l e t t e r t o R a d c l i ff e a nno unc i ngtha t i t woul d o ff set the deb t ag ai ns t th e pensi on paym ents ex p l i ci tl y s tat ed, “W e hav e r ecei ved noti ce that y ou fi l ed a C h ap ter7 bankr up tcy peti ti on o n O c to b er 13 , 200 5.” The next and m or e co m ple x i ssue i s w hetherthe sta y sh o ul d ha ve b ee n l i fte d

. R es o l ut i o n o fthe i ss ue t ak es us to ER I SA’s anti

- al i enati on pro vi si ons. ERIS A is, of cour se, des i g ne d a m o ng othe r thi ng s to s afegua r d e m pl o y m en t b en efit s. Boggs v . B o ggs , 5 20 U. S
. 8 33 ( 19 97 )
. One o fthe w ays i t pr ote cts benefi ts is thro ugh an ant i

- al i enati on provi si on wh i ch st ate s s i m plythat“[ e] ach pensi on pl an shal l prov i de that benefi ts provi ded under the pl an m ay no t be a ss i g ne d ora l i en at ed. ” 29 U. S
. C. § 1 05 6( d) ( 1)
. TheN o. 08

- 2885 7 anti

- al i enati on l anguage r em ove s Radcl i ff e’ s pensi on b en efit s fro m th e b an kr u p tc y e st at e. See Patt e rson v. Shum ate, 504 U .S . 753 (19 92 ); In re B a k er, 11 4 F
. 3d 636 (7th C ir. 1997). Des pi te thi s pr o vi si o n, the r e ar e ce r ta i n e xe m pti o ns f ro m th e b an o n al i enati on. S ecti on 1 056( d)( 4) sa ys that th e b an on alien at ion d oe s n ot ap p ly if ( A ) the or der o r re quir em ent t o pay ar i ses

— ( i ) u n d e r a j u d g me n to fc o n v i c t i o n f o r a c r i me i nv o l vi ngs uchpl an, [or] (ii) un d er a c ivil j u d gm en t . . . e n te re d b y a c ou rtin an act i on br ought i n connect i on w i th a vi ol ati on ( or alle ge d vio lat ion ) of p ar t 4 of th is s u b tit le

. . . . [ a nd ] (B ) the j ud gm ent, o rder, decr ee, o r set tl em ent a gr eem en t exp ressly provid es for th e o ff set of al l or part o fthe a m o unt ord ered o r r equi r ed to b e pai d t o the pla n aga i nst the par ti ci pant’s bene fi ts provi ded u n d er th e p lan

. . . . H ow ever, these e x e m p tions d o not ap p ly to the Fun d ’s ac tio n s. T h er e is n o c rim in al ac tiv ity h er e, an d th e o n ly ci vi l j ud gm ent invol ves a s trai ghtf or w ar d bre ach o f contr act, nota bre ach o fa fi du ci ar y duty

— i
. e. , a vi ol ati on ofpart4 ofthe subti tl e. N ev er th ele ss , th e F u n d sa ys it d id n ot vio lat e t h e a n tial i enati on pro vi si ons. Fi rs t, ci ti ng C oar v . Ka zim ir, 99 08 N o. 08

- 2885 F. 2d 1413 ( 3r d Ci r. 1993 ) , i t ar gues that the a nti

- al i enati on pr o v i s i o ns a pp l y o nl y wh e n a thi r d p a r t y i s i nvol v e d, a n d t h e r e i s n o t h i r d p a r t y h e r e . I t i s t r u e th a ti n Coarthe cour t s ai d “w e r ead se cti on 2 06( d )(1) and, by exte nsi on Gu i d ry [ v. She e tM e t al Worke rs Nat ’ l Pe ns i on Fun d, 49 3 U
. S. 36 5 ( 1990 ) ] , as shi eld in g onl y the be nefi ci ar i es’ in te re st u n d er th e p en sio n p lan from t h i rd -p ar ty cr ed ito r s. ” At 14 20

- 21
. H o wev er, th e co nt ex t o f th e state m en t i s that trustees m ust “ und o any har m t hey ha ve done to th e pe ns ion p l an. . . . ” At 1 42 0. I n o th erwor ds, the c ou rt w as co n sid er in g t h e a n ti-a lien at ion p ro vis ion s in th e con tex t o ffi duci ar i es . As we ha ve s ai d, the r e i s no cl ai m i n the prese nt ca se ofany fi du ci ar y duty. Ina sim ilar ve in, th e F u n d arg u es th at ou r d ec isio n in N or t hc ut tv. Ge ne r al M ot ors H o ur l y- RateEm pl oye e s Pe ns i on Plan , 46 7 F
. 3d 1 03 1 (7th Ci r. 20 06) , al l ows a s eto fff or contr actualr em edi es du e a pl an. The cas e i s no t o n poi nt. I n N o rthcuttthe p l a n wa s u s i ngthe o ff s e tt o r e c o v er ov er p ay m en ts to a b en efic iar y. T h e p lan h ad orig in ally pai d disabi l i ty benefi ts to the b enefi ci ar y, wh o then obt ai ned soci alse curit y d i sabi l i ty benefi ts. The pl an re quir ed that, i n such a s ituati on, the benefi ci ar y r epay the b enefits the pla n pai d, w hi ch dup l i cate the soc i al secur i ty benefi ts. The pl an had the right t o re cove r the o ver paym ent by withhol ding future paym ents. He r e , o fc o u r s e , b e c a u s e n o p a y me n t s w e r e e v e r ma de t o R a dc l i f f e , the r e we r e n o o v e r pa y men t s t o r e c o up . The Fund al so ci tes a re cent Suprem e C ou rt cas e

— Ken nedy v. Pla n Admini s t r at orf orD uPontSa vi ngs an d Inve s t m e ntPla n , 12 9 S
. C t. 865 ( 2009 )

— a nd c l a i ms i ts up -N o. 08

- 2885 9 port s the o f f set
. The Fund say s that Ken ne dy “ho l ds that t he a nt i

- al i enati o n c l a us e i n ER I S A i s s i mi l a r t o a s pe nd

t h r i ftc l a u s e i n a t r a di t i o n a l t r u s ta n d l o o k s t o th e c o mm o n l aw o f tr us ts to i nt er pr et th e sc o pe of the a nt i

- al i en at ion ru le in E R ISA in t h at co n te x t . .
. . ” W e are a ta l o s s t o k no w h o w the F un d thi nk s that Ken ne dyi s h e l p fu l to it s p os itio n . Ken ne dyinv olv es a su it b y the e s t a t e o fa p l a n pa r t i c i pa nta g a i nst t he p l a n a dm i ni st r at o r s ee k i ngt o r ec o ve r b en efi ts f o r the e st at e. The p ar tic ip an t, w h os e w ife w as th e b en efic iar y d u rin g t h eir m ar ri age , di d not, u p on thei r divo rce , desi gnate a new benefi ci ar y f ora savi ngs a nd i nvest m ent pl an. The pl an ad m in is tr at or p aid th e b en efit s t o t h e t h en -ex -w ife in ac c or d an c e w ith d es ign at ion s o fbe n efic iar y. In t h e s u it by the e sta te to cl ai m the benefi ts, o ne o fthe issues w as w hetherthe d i vor ce c onst i tuted a com m on l aw w aiv er of benefi ts. The Courtf ound that the waiv er w as val i d; that

— as in the co m m o n l aw of sp en d th rift t r usts

— a benefi ci ar y c an waive heri nter esti n the benefits . B u t t h e d ivo rc e d ec re e w as n ot a q u a l i f i ed d om es tic re l ati ons or der ( QD RO s a re gi ven s peci alco nsi derati on under the st atute ) , and thus there was no desi gnati on ofan a lte rn ate payee
. The Courtdecl i ned to say thata w ai ver

—by i tse l fwithou t a d esi gnati on o fan a l ter nate payee

— f o r f ei ts a be ne fi ci al i nt er es t an d se nds i t to the ne xti n l i ne ( i n tha t ca se, th e e st at e)
. S o the Co ur t co nc lu d ed th at, w h ile th e e x -w ife’s w aiv er w as va lid , i t di d no t ca r r y the da y f o r the e st at e: the f act th at th e w ai veres caped “i nevi tabl e nul l i ty und erthe express te r m s o fthe a nt i al i en at i o n cl au se ” di d no t co nt r o l the dec i si o n. At 8 74
. De spi te th e w ai ve r, the pl ana dm i n-10 N o. 08

- 2885 i str ato r w as re quir ed to d o i ts “st atuto ryERIS A duty” an d p a y t h e b e n e fi t s t o th e e x - wi f e . As r e l e v a n t to o ur case , the C o u rt em p ha sized that plan ad m inistrators are obl i gat ed to act in a ccor dance w i th pl an docum ents w hen those docum ents ar e co nsi ste nt with the s tatute. W ha t th e Cou r t was a fte r was s i m p li ci tyi n the a dm i nistration of p la n s s o that ben efi ciaries could “get w ha t’s com i ng quick l y, w i thout the f ol dero l ess enti al und erl ess cer tain r u l es. ” At 875- 76 ( quoti ng Fox V alley & Vicini ty Con s t r . Worke rs Pe n s i on Fu nd v. Br own , 89 7 F
. 2d 275, 28 3 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0) )
. The point w as to pr ev en t pl ana dm i ni str ato rs fro m havi ng to exam i ne a “m ult itu de ofexte rnal docum ents” bef or e paying be nefi ts. A t 8 76. I n the p re sent case , the Fund d ocum ents i nd i cate that R ad cli ffe is th e ben e fi ciary. U nd er Ken ne dy, the a dm i ni str ato r i s obl i gat ed to pay the benefi ts in conf or m i ty wi thpl ando cument s wi th o utr es o r t to e xt erna l do cum en ts , in th is cas e a j u d gm en t on a con tr ac t w h i c h falls f a r s h o r t o f e s t a b l i s h i n g th e r i g h t t o a s e t o ff, e v e n i ft he a dde d c o mpl i c a t i o n o fb a nk r up t c y we r e n o ti nv o l v e d. I n shor t, the bankr up tcy j u d ge was w el lwithi n hi s di scre ti on i n re fusi ng to l i ft the st ay. To a ct o ther w i se w oul d have be en an exer ci se i n futi l i ty. The Fund al so dispute s th e ba nkruptcy cour t’ s ca l cul ati on of com pensato ry dam age s f or pre- peti ti on p ensi on be ne fi ts , the a w ard o fpuni ti ve da m ag es , a nd the i nt e r e s tr a t e a pp l i e d t o the da mag e a wa r d. T h e p r e - p e t i t i o n p e n s i o n p a y m e n t s m a d e i n S e p t e mberand Octobe r 2005 , the Fu n d ar gues, would, i fthey had been paid, be proper ty ofthe est ate , and the debtorN o. 08

- 2885 11 cannot com pel the Fund to m ake paym en ts to hi m o f proper ty bel ongi ng to the est ate
. Thi s s tr i kes u s as a stunni ngl y b ol d ar gum ent c om i ng fro m the enti ty w hi ch i m pr op er ly f ai l ed to m ake the paym ents i n the fi rs t pla ce. A nd i t i s a n ar gum ent we r ej ect. The Fund re l i es on M or l an v. U nivers al Guaranty L i f eIns uranc eCom pany, 29 8 F
. 3d 60 9, 6 16 ( 7th C ir. 2 002 ) , a nd qu o te s as f o l l o ws: the ba nk r upt cyfi l i ng“ l o stthe [ pr e- pet i ti o n] c hunko f[ pl ai nti f f’ s] ERIS A cl ai m . . . ; i t fel l i n to t h e es tat e i n bankru p tc y.” (T h e F u n d ad d ed th e e llip sis an d th e b ra c ke ts .) The Fund im pli es that M or l an says allpre -p e titi on E R I SA claim s ar e par t o fa bankr up tcy est ate
. There i s no such i m pli cati on i n the case . The M or l an quo tati o n wi th o ut the e l l i psi s m ake s cl earthatwh at felli nto the b ankrup tcy e st at e was the ERI S A cl ai m “ th atwe ar e co ncerned wi thi n thi s par t o fthe o pi ni o n. ” Tha t “pa r t o fthe opi ni on” d eal t with w el f ar e be nefi ts, notpensi on be nefits . W e s aid th at so m e w elfa re be n efit s, unl i ke p ens ion be nef

it s , c o ul d b e a s s i g nab l e t o the b a nk r up tcy est ate
. I n the prese nt cas e, o fc ou rse, we are co ncer ned o nl y wi thpe ns i on b en efi ts , no t wel f ar e be ne fi ts
. The F und’ s unde r ha nde d us e o fe l l i psi s to hi d e w ha t th e co ur t was talki ng abo ut, a t be st, unde r m i ne s i ts a r g um ent; the Fund is notenti tl ed to the l i ne- i tem ve to. Als o , the F und r el i es o n K o k o s z k a v . B elfo rd, 41 7 U.S
. 64 2 (19 74 ), for th e p ro p os it i o n t h a t a “rig h t t o a refu n d is th er ef or e pr oper ty ofthe est ate
. ” Kokos zka , ho wev er, deal t n ot w ith p ensi on be nefi ts, but w i th an i ncom e t ax r efund. Use o ftha t ca se i n thi s con tex t i s al so di sing en uous. A s t o t h e in te re st rat e a p p lied an d th e a w ar d of p u n iti ve dam age s, we agr ee enti re l y with the dist ri ct c ourt
.12 N o. 08

- 2885 A ccor dingly,the j ud gm ent of the di stri ct c ourti s A FFIRMED .

4- 23- 09