Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

fixed payments is not a trust because the promise “will not 
change, regardless of how well or poorly the [trust] is man-
aged.”  Ante, at 4.  That does not follow (a promise of pay-
ment differs from an actual payment) and it does not dis-
prove a trust.  Trusts vary in their terms, to be sure.  See 
Bogert & Bogert §181 (“The settlor has great freedom in the 
selection of the beneficiaries and their interests”).  But re-
gardless whether a trust creates a “present interest” in “im-
mediate enjoyment” of the trust property or “a future inter-
est” in “receiv[ing] trust assets or benefits at a later time,” 
the beneficiary “always” has an “equitable” stake.  Ibid. 

Second, the Court states that “the employer, not plan par-
ticipants, receives any surplus left over after all of the ben-
efits are paid” and “the employer, not plan participants, is
on the hook for plan shortfalls.”  Ante, at 4; see also ante, 
at 7  (noting  that  “the  federal  Pension  Benefit  Guaranty 
Corporation  is  required  by  law  to  pay”  some  benefits  if  a 
plan  fails).   But  that  does  not  distinguish  ERISA  from 
standard  trust  law,  either.    It  does  not  matter  that  other 
parties besides beneficiaries may have a residual stake in
trust assets; a beneficiary with a life-estate interest in pay-
ments  from  a  trust  still  has  an  equitable  interest.    See 
Bogert  &  Bogert  §706.    Even  life-beneficiaries  may  “re-
quir[e]” the trustee “to pay the trust the amount necessary
to place the trust account in the position in which it would 
have  been,  had  the  [trustee’s  fiduciary]  duty  been  per-
formed.”  Ibid.  If anything, petitioners’ equitable interests 
are stronger than those of their common-law counterparts;
the Plan Document provides petitioners a residual interest
in the pension fund’s assets even after the trust terminates.
See Record in No. 13–cv–2687, Doc. 107–1, at 75. 

Nor  is  it  relevant  whether  additional  parties  (including
an insurance carrier) are “on the hook” for plan shortfalls
after a loss occurs.  Cf. ante, at 4, 6, 7, 8, n. 2.  The Court 
appears to conclude that insurance (or other protections to