Document: 514 U.S. 73115 S.Ct. 1223131 L.Ed.2d 94 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.Frank C. SCHOONEJONGEN, et al. No. 93-1935. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 17, 1995. Decided March 6, Syllabus * Petitioner Curtiss-Wright Corp. amended its employee benefit plan to provide that postretirement health care coverage it had maintained for many years would cease retirees upon termination business operations in facility from which they retired. In ruling respondent their ensuing suit, District found, among other things, new provision constituted an "amendment" plan; documents nowhere contained a valid "procedure amending [the] plan, and identifying persons who have authority amend plan," as required by § 402(b)(3) Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA); proper remedy this violation was declare void ab initio. The Appeals affirmed, holding standard reservation clause Curtiss-Wright's constitution states "[t]he Company reserves right . modify or amend" plan—is too vague be amendment procedure under 402(b)(3). Held: 1. sets forth procedure. Pp. __. (a) satisfies plain text 402(b)(3)'s two requirements. Since ERISA's general definitions section makes quite clear term "person," wherever appears statute, includes companies, satisfy identification requirement naming Company" "the perso[n]" with authority. This outright necessarily indicates person well, since effect, says is look always company rather than any party. also contains plan." Section requires only there procedure, literal terms are indifferent procedure's level detail. As commonly understood, "particular way" doing something, effect may adequately particular way making amendment. Principles corporate law ready-made set rules deciding has act on behalf company. But read requiring specify face company's might lead invalidation myriad procedures no one think violate statute. (b) There support respondents' argument Congress intended convey enough detail serve beneficiaries' interest knowing plans' terms. primary purpose ensure every workable while goal enabling beneficiaries learn rights obligations at time served elaborate scheme, detailed elsewhere specifies must written, meet certain reporting disclosure requirements, made available inspection administrator's office. 2. On remand, decide whether complied case. answer will depend fact-intensive inquiry, applicable principles, into approved provision. If not properly authorized when issued, question arise subsequent actions ratify ex post. P. 12. 18 F.3d 1034, (CA3 1994), reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Lawrence Reich, Newark, petitioner. Richard Bress, Washington, DC, U.S., amicus curiae special leave Thomas M. Kennedy, New York City, respondents. Justice O'CONNOR 1 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 875, 29 U.S.C. 1102(b)(3), "a such case presents employer-provided plans stating "The plan" We hold does. 2 For years, petitioner voluntarily employees worked facilities; respondents Wood-Ridge, Jersey. specific determined, could principally found documents: Summary Plan Description (SPD), both primarily covered active benefits. 3 early 1983, presumably due rising cost care, revised SPD issued following provision: "TERMINATION OF HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. Coverage dependents retired." App. 49. main authors provision, director benefits labor counsel, testified did effected "change" but merely clarified it. Id., 70-71, 79. Probably reason, record less officers committees make amendments ratified event, later year, announced Wood-Ridge close. Shortly thereafter, executive vice president wrote series letters informing them post-retirement were being terminated. 4 Respondents brought suit federal court over benefits, litigation ensued. ultimately rejected most claims, including contention bound itself contractually life. agreed, however, significant change plan's thus 402(b)(3); eventually ordered pay $2,681,086 back 5 appeal, argued contain namely, few secondary documents. states: amend, whole part, all provisions Plan." 37; see Pension Coordinator ¶ 13,181, p. 13,276R-124 (1994) (reproducing IRS's prototype similar language). view, It says, Company. " 6 Third Circuit argument, well arguments before it, affirmed Court's remedy. See 1034 (1994). explained: "A interested parties [including beneficiaries] know how altered alterations. Only if information able determine certainty given exactly what provides." 1038. And suggested cannot unless require precisely "what individuals bodies within c[an] promulgate effective amendment." 1039. court's then, "by Company," without more, vague. so holding, distinguished case, Huber v. Casablanca Industries, Inc., 916 F.2d 85 1990), upheld said, Trustees." "By trustees," reasoned, very meaning Huber; meant resolutio[n] regularly board [of trustees] meeting accordance established process trustees." F.3d, 1039 (citation omitted). 7 footnote, related concurring views Judge Roth. 1039, n. 3. According court, Roth thought notion should light traditional say directors whomever take action." Ibid. more way, She concurred dissented, because, words, "neither [Curtiss-Wright's] nor entity [Curtiss-Wright] power 'the Company' [the provision]." 8 petitioned certiorari questions and, not, granted both. 512 ----, 115 42, 129 937 II 9 interpreting 402(b)(3), we mindful ERISA does create substantive entitlement kind welfare Employers sponsors generally free ERISA, reason time, adopt, modify, terminate plans. Adams Avondale 905 943, 947 (CA6 1990) ("[A] fiduciary capacity plan"). Nor establish minimum participation, vesting, funding requirements pension Shaw Delta Air Lines, 463 85, 90-91, 103 2890, 2896-2897, 77 490 (1983). Accordingly, deprive cognizable complaint ERISA; claim do permissible manner. A. 10 actually things: "[a procedure] With respect second requirement, "Definitions" companies. 1002(9) ("The 'person' means individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, mutual company, joint-stock trust, estate, unincorporated organization, association, organization"). statute's 11 speaks, somewhat awkwardly, authority, those outright. Be may, simply identifies well. example, identify say, Company." Such substantial first appear. To person—that is, union, third-party trustee, kinds outside that, plans, exercise 12 difficult recall, correct, think, like unilateral decision decision—and trustee approval union. Moreover, extent barest procedures, because simplest plans: single-employer administered employer funded employer. More complicated multiemployer designed cover 13 matter. here is. A "procedure," Webster's International Dictionary 1807 (1976), manner proceeding," Random House English Language 1542 (2d ed.1987). Certainly Adequately, refinement. 14 order sense, some determining or, language trust law, "sufficiently manifest [its] intention" amend. Restatement (Second) Trusts 331, Comment c (1957). After all, natural capable decisions. suggested, principles determining, whatever context, decisions Consider, ordinary sales contract between "Company X" third-party. regarding meaningless, unenforceable, enter agreement carry out Rather, give content. W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia Law Private Corporations 466, 505 (rev. ed. corporation contracts entered agents acting benefit, provided scope express implied powers"). So here. 15 end, perhaps strongest textual reading specification improbable results. That especially plans—which, covers imagine multi-employer "This written two-thirds participating Companies, subject seem fairly robust can numerous variants Yet, our hypothetical Companies" (let alone counts "approval Trustees"), insufficiently pass muster result. B 16 nonetheless argue drafting Ordinarily, reluctant indulge based legislative where yields answer, persuasive. 17 obviously functional: placement 402(b), lays requisite functional features 1102(b) (every shall have, addition establishing carrying policy method," "[a] allocation responsibilities operation administration basis payments Requiring coherent serves several laudable goals. First, risk rendering forever unamendable principles. 331(2) Second, increases likelihood proposed amendments, serious events, recognized consideration deserve. Finally, having enables administrators, people manage day-to-day level, mechanism sorting out, occasional communications through offices conflict existing terms, bona fide not. fact, administrators statutory responsibility out. 1104(a)(1)(D) (plan duty run "in instruments governing insofar consistent statute]," include provision). mind fact 402(b) generally, located "fiduciary responsibility" ERISA. §§ 1101-1114. 19 guarantee conveys enable time. doubt central goals already scheme place built around reliance 20 another core "[e]very pursuant instrument. 1102(a)(1) (emphasis added). words key congressional report, examining documents, his H.R.Rep. 93-1280, 297 (1974) Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 4639, 5077, 5078 gives "written documents" comprehensive "reporting disclosure" 1021-1031, part. One periodically furnish Description, 1024(b)(1), communicate essential about plan. Not surprisingly, "name address" fiduciaries, names addresses 1022(b). same summaries 210 days after end year adopted. 1024(b)(1). Under Descriptions "shall calculated understood average participant." 1022(a)(1). 21 important, independent automatically distributed beneficiaries, administrator "principal office" designated locations currently operative, 1024(b)(2), new, amendments. 1024(b)(4) (requiring request, copies reasonable copying charge). indicated earlier, appear incentive obtaining quickly possible weeding defective ones. 22 foolproof informational although thorough. Either devised. supplemented far-away part least results, supra, ____. 23 concluding mean imply anything wrong trying prove unfavorable adopted invalid. here, nothing obstruct efforts. facilitate efforts either. sure, companies want greater avoid costly litigation. Or retain flexibility designating (read law) provides them. either species larger dilemma whenever designate who, legally binding third-parties challenging unauthorized. Cf. R. Clark, Corporate 3.3.2 (1986). addresses. rather, follows dictating specificity chooses, elsewhere, level. III 24 Having determined reach violation. been heart case: Curt iss-Wright's Company"—was possessed delegation impliedly, SPD. 444, 397-398 (1990) (authority "may inferred circumstances acquiescence course business"). then actions, president's termination, id., 437.10, 386. 25 judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings opinion. 26 ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.

Category: 7