Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1054467/US-Supreme-Court-05-1448
Timestamp: 2018-07-17 04:32:43
Document Index: 326725052

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 1', 'art 30', 'art 11', 'arts 29', 'arty 36', 'art 28', 'arts 27', 'art 29']

US Supreme Court: 05-1448 | Employee Retirement Income Security Act | Mergers And Acquisitions
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JEFFREY H. BECK LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATES OF CROWN VANTAGE, INC. AND CROWN PAPER COMPANY, Petitioner v. PACE INTERNATIONAL UNION, ET AL. : : : : : : : : : No. 05-1448
The above-entitled matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 11:02 a.m. APPEARANCES: M. MILLER BAKER, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of Petitioner. MATTHEW D. ROBERTS, ESQ., Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner. 1
JULIA P. CLARK, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of Respondents.
M. MILLER BAKER, ESQ. On behalf of the Petitioner ORAL ARGUMENT OF MATTHEW D. ROBERTS, ESQ. On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner ORAL ARGUMENT OF JULIA P. CLARK, ESQ. On behalf of Respondents REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF M. MILLER BAKER, ESQ. On behalf of the Petitioner 50 27 18 4
next in Case 05-1448, Beck versus PACE International Union. Mr. Baker. ORAL ARGUMENT OF M. MILLER BAKER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice,
and may it please the Court: After filing for bankruptcy, Crown Vantage decided to terminate 12 over-funded pension plans. terminating these pension plans, Crown was able to provide its plan participants with 100 percent of their accrued benefits and at the same time recover almost $5 million in surplus plan assets for the benefits of both Crown's creditors as well as plan members who made individual contributions to those pension plans. After Crown made the decision to terminate these pension plans, it received a merger proposal from the PACE union to merge the pension plan into the PACE multi-employer pension plan. proposal. Crown rejected that By
The Ninth Circuit held that Crown breached
its fiduciary duty by not sufficiently considering that merger proposal. 4
This Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit for two separate and independent reasons. First, merger
is a nonfiduciary plan sponsor function and Crown could not have had a fiduciary duty to consider the merger proposal by PACE. A series of this Court's decisions
beginning with Curtiss-Wright and continuing with Lockheed, Hughes aircraft and Pegram hold that decisions to create, to modify, to terminate, or to amend pension plans are sponsor functions, settlor functions under trust law, that are not subject to ERISA fiduciary duties. JUSTICE GINSBURG: I could understand that
if the plan is being set up or if there's going to be a change to the multiemployer plan while the business is ongoing. But in this situation, you, you say if the
employer elects to have an annuity, then choosing which insurance company is going to supply the annuity, that would be a fiduciary function. Well, this is, the
termination, the merger that's proposed here, is instead of having an annuity we'll put the assets into this other plan. It's quite different from choosing a form
for an ongoing operation and saying, we're out of it and we're now going to try to distribute the assets in the way that will best protect the beneficiaries. MR. BAKER: Justice -- Justice Ginsburg, 5
a decision to terminate a plan or a decision to merge a plan requires that a plan sponsor consider as a threshold matter several factors. plan form be of the acquiring plan? First, what will the And PACE's proposal
would have required the merger into a multiemployer plan as opposed to a single employer plan. form of the plan. That goes to the
PACE's proposal would have resulted It
in a new plan sponsor and a new plan administrator. would have resulted in a new dispute resolution mechanism. That goes to the content of the plan.
finally, most importantly, the PACE proposal would have gone to the level of benefits provided by the plan and the level of benefits, as this Court has repeatedly recognized is a decision that is a plan sponsor decision. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well if you're correct and
this was a sponsor decision, not a fiduciary decision, let me ask you when you're wearing, when the company is wearing its sponsor hat and says we're going to terminate this plan, does it have a duty to consider the best interests and the security of the employees, number one, when it picks an insurance company? It can't pick
some flaky insurance company if there is a much more solid insurance company, can it? 6
MR. BAKER: the function at issue.
Justice Kennedy, it depends upon If the function is the selection
of an insurance company to provide the annuity, that is a plan administrator function and it is subject to ERISA fiduciary duties. But you is to analyze it from -But if have this duty to
consider the interest of the employees in selecting the, the insurance company, in selecting the amount of the annuity, etcetera, if you have that duty it seems to me that that's a fiduciary duty. MR. BAKER: Kennedy, Kennedy. It absolutely is, Justice
But it is only in the context of the
selection of the annuity that the plan sponsor, the plan administrator, must purchase after the plan sponsor has made that threshold decision to terminate the plan. There is that threshold decision. And likewise, merger
is a threshold decision that goes to the -JUSTICE SOUTER: sticking point. No, but that's I think our
If the, if the plan sponsor decides to
purchase an annuity, it's accepted I think by you and by everybody that there are two decisions being made. Decision one is terminate the plan. Decision two,
distribute the assets by purchasing an annuity that gives the beneficiaries what they should get. on. 7
But when we come to the question of merger, you're saying there's only one decision, and I think that's where I'm having trouble with your argument. When we come to the question of merger, it seems to me there are two decisions again. The first decision is What
we're going to terminate the plan that we've got. do we do with our assets.
We have decided to merge --
one possible decision as an alternative to annuities is to merge the plan with, with another one. Why aren't
there two decisions in the merger case just as there are two decisions in the annuity case? MR. BAKER: There are two decisions in a
merger case and the threshold question, Justice Souter, is whether to merge. Whether to merge is a -Why do you say that's the
JUSTICE SOUTER: threshold question?
I thought the threshold question is
whether to terminate what we've got now. MR. BAKER: Justice Souter. That's a different question,
The question is whether to merge, and a
question whether to merge goes to plan form, it goes to the content of the plan and it also -JUSTICE SOUTER: not ending our plan. If they say, look, we're
Let's assume you have an ongoing
business and they say, we're just sick of the form that it's in now and we can get a good deal by letting 8
somebody else administer this, so we're going to merge. I can see that as a single decision. what you've got here. But that's not
As I understand it, the decision The
to terminate was made, it was over and done with. question was what are they going to do with these assets?
It's at that point that PACE arrived and said:
Give them to us through a merger. I don't see how you eliminate the, the termination decision before the merger decision. MR. BAKER: different questions. Justice Souter, there are two One question is termination, one And the
question is merger, and they're not the same.
question whether to merge is a sponsor decision because you have to make those threshold questions as to what will the form of the plan be, what will the benefits provided be. JUSTICE SOUTER: going to be zero. our plan. The form of the plan is We are terminating
roughly, maybe three.
We can either buy annuities, we
can give the assets to the beneficiaries or we can give the assets to PACE in the form of a merger. MR. BAKER: assets, Justice Souter. JUSTICE SOUTER: 9
It's not a disposition of
Are you saying you can't
have a merger of a plan that has already been terminated, so that the merger decision is necessarily a decision that has to be made before the termination -before a termination decision. MR. BAKER: It is -- once a plan decision,
once a termination decision has been made, and once that decision has been executed, it's impossible to merge the plan. JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Baker, I thought your
position in your briefs, and I don't know why you do not make this reply to this exchange, is that the merger with another plan is not a termination, isn't that your basic position? JUSTICE SOUTER: suggesting. MR. BAKER: termination. JUSTICE SCALIA: Because if it were a Absolutely, it's not a That's what I keep
termination, in a termination, you must distribute the assets to the participants. And here when you merge
with somebody else, the assets are not distributed to the participants, but they are thrown into a pot with other people. MR. BAKER: Justice Scalia. 10
I agree with Justice On the other hand, you And what we are
Scalia, that that's one answer.
have -- there are two arguments here.
exploring now is whether this is a fiduciary obligation or a sponsor obligation. MR. BAKER: That's correct. So we will have to assume
for that -- if you can't do it by merger, then the whole case goes away anyway. If merger is not permitted under
the statute, then we don't need to worry whether it's a fiduciary response, correct? MR. BAKER: That's correct. So what we're asking in
the first part of this argument is whether or not it's a fiduciary response. I are questioning. And that's what Justice Souter and And it does seem to me, assume that
there is a meeting of the board of directors, we think we are going to terminate this plan. At that point, And it's
choices are made as to how to terminate it.
difficult for me to see why the interests of the employees are not uppermost in -- in your duties, i.e. a fiduciary duty, when you decide how you're going to terminate it. MR. BAKER: The answer, Justice Kennedy, is
that it is a business decision to decide in what form 11
the benefits are going to be provided.
choice between a termination and a merger goes to that issue. For example, in a merger, there is no automatic
vesting -JUSTICE KENNEDY: Why can't you say it's a
business decision as to which insurance company you're going to select. Maybe you do say that. Because at that point, it's a
mere execution of the prior policy decision. JUSTICE KENNEDY: you characterize it. Well, but that's the way
I don't know why it's mere
execution, when it's an annuity and it's not mere execution when it's a merger, once the determination decision has been made. MR. BAKER: Because the merger decision --
you have to ask those threshold questions, Justice Kennedy, what are the level of benefits that are going to be provided in the acquiring plan. In a merger,
there is no automatic vesting of accrued benefits as there is in a termination. JUSTICE BREYER: I'm just listening to this.
It sounds to me as if you're saying, one, the employer decides to terminate, okay? go to the next question. Now that's done. Then we And
in respect to that, I think Justice Kennedy was asking, 12
as I heard him, don't you have a fiduciary duty when you decide how. you do. And now there is a third question. Does And your answer, as I heard it, was yes,
what happened in terminating mean that although you have a fiduciary duty, you couldn't consider a merger, because that's just not consistent with the basic plan of terminating. Is that right? If it's wrong, don't
even bother to answer it. JUSTICE SCALIA: that he is wrong. MR. BAKER: None of us do, Justice Scalia. He doesn't like to hear
The answer to the third part of that question, Justice Breyer, is yes. But where I disagree with you is in the
second predicate, which is that the -- the execution of the termination is necessarily -JUSTICE BREYER: Why did you answer yes to
his question, Justice Kennedy's, about the insurance company? MR. BAKER: Perhaps I was imprecise. If I
was imprecise, I apologize. upon the function at issue.
The answer is, it depends A broad generalization that
any decision taken after termination is necessarily a plan sponsor function is just wrong. One has to look at
the function at issue, and the function in connection 13
with a merger is a plan sponsor decision, because you can't get away from those threshold questions as to the form, the content, and the benefits that are to be provided in that plan. JUSTICE SOUTER: Why isn't exactly the same
point true with respect to purchasing annuities? MR. BAKER: Because the decision has already
been made, usually it's in the plan document, to provide for annuities. And the only question is providing the
annuity that is best suited to the interest of the principals. JUSTICE SOUTER: What if the plan document
doesn't say anything about what will follow termination. There is nothing in there about annuities. Is the
annuity -- the decision to purchase annuities a decision subject to fiduciary obligation. MR. BAKER: annuities? You mean the decision to offer The decision to offer
annuities, that is the provision, the actual selection of the annuities -- and I note that the Internal Revenue Service will require -JUSTICE SOUTER: The decision to -- to take
the option of purchasing annuities or offering annuities to the beneficiaries, that is a fiduciary decision. MR. BAKER: No, Justice -- the -- if the 14
plan is silent -JUSTICE SOUTER: MR. BAKER: If the plan is silent.
If the plan is silent, and the
plan sponsor -- and the question is, how do we distribute, the mechanism of distribution. That is a
plan sponsor function in the absence of any provision -JUSTICE SOUTER: What if they say, we will
distribute by going to the top of the building and throwing the money out on the street. problem? MR. BAKER: Well, that would not be Fiduciary
permitted by the, by the -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: MR. BAKER: Souter. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I thought your Right --
By operation of law, Justice
argument was, once you make a decision to terminate, there are various rules that are triggered, you just can't take the money and run with it. make provision. You've got to
And that merger was not one of the Is that wrong?
permitted ways of terminating a plan. MR. BAKER:
Well, that is a second argument,
an alternative argument, Chief Justice Roberts, that merger is not a means of termination. question is -15
But the threshold
Maybe it's a simpler
argument than this first one we've been wrestling with. MR. BAKER: Justice Scalia, they may have But the
different issues associated with them.
threshold question here is whether or not this is a plan sponsor decision. And a plan sponsor decision is always
a decision that goes to the content and the form of the plan, as well as to level of benefits to be provided. JUSTICE ALITO: Is what's really involved in
this, who is going to get the $5 million reversion that you would get if you purchased an annuity? what's really in dispute? MR. BAKER: Justice Alito. JUSTICE ALITO: you would like it. I mean, PACE would like it, That's what's really in dispute, Is that
I mean, how would a fiduciary decide
between those two, if it were a fiduciary duty. MR. BAKER: Well, it's not a fiduciary duty.
This Court's cases are -- the PBGC and the agencies recognize that the decision to terminate in order to recapture a reversion is perfectly permissible, so long as the plan sponsor complies with all the relevant requirements of a termination. JUSTICE KENNEDY: But Justice Alito's Let's assume,
question, and I have the same question. 16
A -- I know this is not your position -- but the merger is a permissible option. And B -- and I know this is
not your position -- that this is a fiduciary obligation. I assume then you would lose, because the
extra assets must go, the reversion interest, must go to the employees if it's in their benefit. MR. BAKER: If we lose on both the issues
that we have argued, Justice -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But the point is the
$5 million is not going to these employees, it's being thrown into this vast sea of all these other employees, whose employers have not done as good a job of funding their plans. This is to the benefit not to the
beneficiaries of this plan, but to other union members who don't have the luxury of having an employer who has overfunded their plan, and are trying to get that five million to help them, not your beneficiaries. MR. BAKER: Well, that's absolutely correct.
The money here would have gone not to the plan members, but to another union. JUSTICE KENNEDY: But then you say that if
it's a fiduciary obligation, and the merger is a permitted option, that the administrator, A, can, or B, must still give the money back to you. MR. BAKER: If it's a fiduciary obligation, 17
If it's a fiduciary obligation, the plan sponsor,
plan administrator -- because now we're talking about an administrative function -- the plan administrator has a duty to carefully consider that option. It doesn't
necessarily result in the money automatically flowing over -JUSTICE KENNEDY: The administrator, as a
fiduciary, can consider the interest of the employer as well as the employees? MR. BAKER: No. The plan administrator,
acting as a fiduciary, can only consider the interest of the employees. JUSTICE SOUTER: MR. BAKER: No. Reserve your time.
I'd like to reserve my time. Thank you, Counsel.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Roberts.
ORAL ARGUMENT OF MATTHEW D. ROBERTS ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE, SUPPORTING THE PETITIONER MR. ROBERTS: please the Court: An employer does not have a fiduciary duty to consider merger as a means of terminating a defined benefit pension plan. First of all, just like the Mr. Chief Justice, and may it
decision to terminate the plan, the decision to merge 18
the plan is a sponsor function, because it's a choice to alter the design, composition and structure of the plan. And because both the decision to terminate and the decision to merge are sponsor functions, the choice between the two is a sponsor function. The plan administrator has a duty to carry out the sponsor's decision to terminate the plan, not to revisit that decision by considering whether to merge the plan instead. JUSTICE GINSBURG: Suppose the argument is
made very forcefully that the insurance companies with these annuities haven't been doing so well, but there is this multi-employer plan that has been just performing so well, and so the -- an appeal is made to the company, you're going out of business, you're not going to be running a plan anymore. Put those assets, distribute
those assets to the place where they will serve the employees best. MR. ROBERTS: Well, that would be not be a
distribution of the assets as a means of terminating the plan, but the employer as a sponsor could, of course, decide to merge the plan instead of to terminate the plan, if the employer made that choice. JUSTICE GINSBURG: You're making the same
rigid argument that Mr. Baker made, that whatever the 19
termination, even though the company is going out of business, it's bankrupt, it's always -- a merger is always characterized as a sponsor business, not fiduciary. MR. ROBERTS: that I say that. Yes. There are two reasons
First, even in the case of a sponsor
of a plan that's going out of business, and that isn't going to be participating in any merged plan, the merger still is a decision to alter the design and composition and structure of the plan, as this case illustrates for the reasons that Mr. Baker said. That it's going to
change fundamentally the plan from a single employer plan to a multi-employer plan, that it's going to change the -- who is the administrator, that it's going to increase the pool of participants, that it's going to affect the benefits, because the assets that were available to pay the benefits are now going to be available to pay benefits of other participants in the, in the successor plan, that the PBGC's guarantee of the benefits is going to be lower in a multi-employer plan. So for all those reasons, it's going to change, still change the structure of the plan. But in
addition to that, the employer of -- the sponsor of this plan that would either terminate, or possibly merge, has a legitimate interest in choosing termination rather 20
than merger, because in a termination, the sponsor can obtain a reversion of the surplus assets, and still fully provide all the benefits of the employees. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Could an administrator
make that decision in its fiduciary capacity? MR. ROBERTS: No, Your Honor, and that goes
back to a confusion that I think was -- was present before, that the decision about the distribution options at termination is a sponsor decision that the employer makes in the plan documents, because those distribution options are benefits under the plan. And while Section 1341(b)(3)(A), in isolation, might appear to permit the plan administrator to choose which of those distribution options that are in the plan to make available, other provisions of ERISA and the tax code prohibit the plan from vesting that discretion in the plan administrator. So in other words, the way it works is when the employer sets up the plan, the employer provides for the forms of distribution that are going to be available at termination. And those forms are just forms of
benefits, optional ways of providing the accrued benefits to the participants. And then the participants
get to pick among those options at termination. JUSTICE SOUTER: 21
Then why are we having this
Why isn't it simply a question of construing
the provision for options in the original plan. MR. ROBERTS: Well, we think that one
requirement is that it's consistent with the plan, and the plan didn't provide that here. JUSTICE SOUTER: MR. ROBERTS: Then why isn't --
Held it was waived. Then why isn't the simple
argument, you can't merge because the plan didn't provide that as an option. MR. ROBERTS: That would certainly be a
basis on which the Court of Appeals could have correctly decided this case, other than the way it did. JUSTICE SOUTER: Was that position
presented, I should have asked you -MR. ROBERTS: It was presented. The Court
of Appeals held that Petitioner had waived the argument, based on the terms of the plan, because Petitioner hadn't made that argument in the bankruptcy court, even though the district court had actually addressed the terms of the plan, but mistakenly construed the plan to permit merger, Your Honor. JUSTICE SOUTER: So we've got to assume that
the plan is silent in the sense that, insofar as the plan documents are concerned, merger is at least a 22
possibility. MR. ROBERTS: assume that, Your Honor. I don't think that you have to I think that because the Court
of Appeals vacated the district court's decision, you know, there is no decision on it. And if it's necessary
to -- to resolving the questions presented, I think the Court could address that question. We don't think it's
necessary to resolve the questions presented because we think that merger is a, is a sponsor decision as a choice to alter the design, composition and the structure of the plan even if it arises in the context of termination. And in addition, we also think that merger is not a permissible method of plan termination under the statute or PBGC regulations which treat merger and termination as distinct procedures. The statute
requires that the assets of a terminating plan be distributed by allocating them among the participants of that plan. That just doesn't occur in a merger.
Instead the assets are transferred to the successor plan and in the successor plan they are commingled to fund the benefits of all the participants in that plan. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Could a plan document
provide that upon termination the employer is entitled to a refund of any excess funding? 23
And would that then
be binding on an administrator in a fiduciary capacity? MR. ROBERTS: The plan document could
provide for a reversion for the employer and in fact this -- it does. But the -And I take it the
administrator would then have the duty to obey that? MR. ROBERTS: That. Yes, because that would
be consistent with ERISA and the administrator has to follow the plan in accordance with ERISA. JUSTICE SOUTER: Then why doesn't the
administrator here take the position that it's going to reserve the five million for itself and merge what's left? If PACE wants a merger with what's left, fine; if
PACE doesn't, end of problem? MR. ROBERTS: Well, an employer, not an
administrator could, could as a sponsor of the plan decide to do a transfer of assets and liabilities of some portion of the, of the plan assets and retain some assets in the plan. JUSTICE SOUTER: My question is why -- why
isn't it an option here to say all right, number one, we got a $5 million surplus. We are going to terminate
this plan and we are going to take the five million. Question number two, should we, should we use what's left to merge into the PACE plan? 24
What the employer would have
to do would be make a sponsor decision to make a transfer of assets and liabilities to the PACE plan before terminating the plan. The employer could make
that decision but that, that decision and the decision afterwards to terminate the remains of the plan would both be sponsor decisions that the employer wouldn't make in a fiduciary capacity. JUSTICE SOUTER: By doing it in that
sequence could it reserve the five million for itself? MR. ROBERTS: It -- it could conceivably do
that, Your Honor, subject to the fact that there are guidelines that the agencies have put out, the 1984 joint guidelines that require in some cases, in order to prevent circumvention of the termination requirements, that require the purchase of annuities or the other distribution of the assets, that those guidelines require that if there is a spinoff or a transfer of assets that's followed by the, by the termination of the remains of the transferee plan, that in some circumstances annuities have to be purchased for the accrued benefits of the participants that are transferred into the other ongoing plan and that are going to be participants of that plan. JUSTICE SOUTER: 25
If we assume that, can they
keep the five million? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Your Honor but that would
be a decision that they make as sponsor of the plan. JUSTICE SOUTER: I don't care how they make
it; I just want to know under the terms of the plan and consistently with ERISA, could they keep the five million and in some sequence provide for a merger with PACE? And I think you're telling me yes. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Your Honor, subject to
the fact that here it's quite possible that the PBGC would consider a transfer of assets and liabilities just to leave assets in a plan as a reversion, that they would be subject to that requirement. And so they would
have to annuitize the benefits of, of the participants in the plan. Because the PBGC would -- would look at
that and they would say that looks like an effort just to extract assets out of what's really an ongoing plan because the employer is not going to be participating in that other plan. The -- they are just stripping it. Then why couldn't the PBGC
say, you know, we are not quite sure how these insurance companies work. So we'll buy the annuity and then the
five million is an extra guarantee to make sure the annuities are paid and that also goes to the insurance company? 26
If I could answer the
The -- the -- they could not -- the plan
administrator could decide to give the reversion to the employees and not -- not take a reversion. It could
amend the plan to allow that but the point is it has a legitimate interest in taking the reversion and that that interest encourages plan sponsors to fully fund their plan, and depriving it of that would prevent them from that discourage full funding of plans. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Ms. Clark. ORAL ARGUMENT OF JULIA P. CLARK, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS MS. CLARK: please the Court. Mr. Chief Justice and may it Thank you, Counsel.
It's notable that neither the
Petitioner nor the Government in their arguments here has referred at all to the definition of fiduciary in ERISA. But that is the beginning point of every one of
this Court's decisions as to what is a fiduciary function and what is not. The statute and I'm quoting
from 29 U.S.C., Section 1002(21)(A), it's in the first page of the appendix to our brief, is that a person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent that -and then it goes on and there are three subparts, two of which are relevant in this case. 27
One of them and I'm taking them out of order because I think subpart 3 is the simplest way to resolve this case, "to the extent that he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of the plan." The other one that's
relevant is subpart 1, which is "to the extent he has" -- "he exercises any authority or control respecting disposition of its assets." The reason that the plan administration subpart is the simplest way to resolve this case is that Congress in Section 1341 of 29 U.S. Code, and that's quoted just immediately below what I was just citing to the Court, specifically assigned to the plan administrator all of the decisions that must be made with respect to implementing the termination of a pension plan. Throughout that section, everything that
must be done is stated specifically to be done by the plan administrator. JUSTICE SCALIA: Of course this argument
would not have any force whatever if indeed, transferring the assets to another plan does not constitute a termination of the plan. MS. CLARK: Justice Scalia, that of course
is the second major issue in the case, and the Government's attorney admitted that in a two-stage 28
transaction, the assets and liabilities of a plan can be transferred to another plan, and the plan can be terminated and assuming the plan provisions are correctly in place the employer can take the reversion of any excess assets. And then -But the first step would be
JUSTICE SCALIA: the transfer.
And at that, at that stage it would not
be a termination and therefore it would not be within the authority of the administrator under this provision. MS. CLARK: Justice Scalia, the
implementation guidelines which the Government attorney also referred to have as their entire focus to make certain that two-part transactions of just the sort that you have referred to are treated as a single whole in determining whether a plan has been legitimately terminated or not. The entire focus of those guidelines
is, we are not going to permit an employer by separating things out into two parts, first the transfer of assets and liabilities, then a termination, to do in form what in substance is simply the continuation of the same plan. JUSTICE SCALIA: That's fine, but that still
does not convert the termination decision into, into a, an administrator's decision, rather than a sponsor's decision. 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Scalia.
I agree completely -Sure, you can oversee it
and make sure that there is no hanky-panky going on in the two-step process but the -- but the determination whether to terminate or not is a sponsor's determination. MS. CLARK: I agree completely, Justice
There is no question here but that the decision But
to terminate a plan is the plan's sponsor decision. when the plan sponsor has made that decision and the question on the table is how shall we implement that
decision to terminate, it does not matter whether that's done through a two-step transaction in which assets are first transferred to another plan and then the formal termination of what's left remains. The implementation
guidelines make very clear that you can't tease those apart and say no, we are only going to look at the final step and that's a termination and nothing else is. JUSTICE SCALIA: But they, but they don't
say that in, in looking at the two of them, you suddenly transform the decision whether to, to transfer as -- as a termination. You transfer that decision from the plan
sponsor to the administrator. MS. CLARK: No, Justice Scalia. The
implementation guidelines did not address the question 30
of in what capacity these decisions would be made.
point in referring to it is simply to say that it is, it is a form over substance argument to say that there is a difference between decision to terminate in which the plan administrator then has a choice of implementing it by either transferring the assets and liabilities to another plan or purchasing an annuity, versus as the Government and as the, I mean as the Petitioner would have it, that that's a completely different transaction from merger as a means of implementing -JUSTICE STEVENS: I'm puzzled. Can I just
get myself straightened out a little bit? If there is a decision to terminate you're suggesting, you're suggesting that it's after that decision made, is made, there can be a decision to merge which would not be a termination? MS. CLARK: Stevens. JUSTICE STEVENS: MS. CLARK: has been made. JUSTICE STEVENS: that. MS. CLARK: I'm sorry; I didn't -Your adversary takes a I disagree with you on Your, your adversary -That is correct, Justice
-- that the termination decision
JUSTICE STEVENS: 31
position that the merger would be not a termination. MS. CLARK: That is what my adversary says.
And if I might focus on the termination section itself, 29 U.S.C. Section 1341, their position has been that a merger with another plan is completely different from the purchase of annuities to provide those benefits. JUSTICE STEVENS: It would seem to me that a And
merger is a continuation rather than a termination. explain to me why I'm wrong on that. MS. CLARK:
The Government's regulations on
single employer plan mergers take the very clear position, and we cited them in our brief, it's the regulations under Section 414(1), the clear position that any time there is a transfer of assets and liabilities from one plan to another, whether a complete transfer or not, that is treated as a spinoff of a plan from the original plan and a merger of the spun off assets and liabilities into the other plan. So that merger is a more flexible concept. It is not just the all-in kind of merger where two plans merge and continue down the road as a single entity. Merger also in the Government's own usage describes a transaction in which all or some portion of liabilities and all or some portion of assets are separated from the original plan and transferred to the second plan. 32
Now, that being the case, the question really as to whether this is the proposed, the proposal of any merger -- and the question presented to the Court is in the abstract, is any plan merger an acceptable means of terminating a plan under Section 1341? JUSTICE SCALIA: Right. And -- and the
argument your adversaries make is that termination requires that the plan assets be distributed to the beneficiaries. MS. CLARK: what it says. JUSTICE SCALIA: And that in the case of a Yes, Justice Scalia. That's
merger the assets are not distributed to the beneficiaries, they are distributed to this new plan, which benefits not only the beneficiaries of this plan but the beneficiaries of other plans. MS. CLARK: the following reason. Justice Scalia, we disagree for Section 1341 specifically
provides that the plan administrator implementing a plan termination may -- and here I'm referring to the language that's again in the appendix to our brief; this is the last page of that appendix, right at the top -plan administrator may purchase irrevocable commitments from an insurer, that's an insured annuity, to provide all benefit liabilities under the plan, or, in 33
accordance with provisions of the plan and any applicable regulations, otherwise fully provide all benefit liabilities under the plan. Now, this Court just last week in James vs. United States construed a similar statute that had a list of crimes followed by the phrase or otherwise involves a serious risk of potential harm to persons -I'm paraphrasing. I didn't get it exactly right. Both
the majority and the dissenting opinion in that case agreed that an "otherwise" structure of this sort means that what precedes the "otherwise" phrase is taken as a baseline against which to judge what follows it, and that it tells you what Congress had in mind as something that satisfies in this case the distribution requirements of the statute. JUSTICE SCALIA: Right. But now, does
indeed the transfer here meet the requirement of little (i)? Does the transferee plan undertake an irrevocable
commitment to provide to these beneficiaries all that they're entitled to, even at the expense of some of the other beneficiaries of that plan? In other words, if
the plan's investments go south does that plan have the authority to say, oh, you know, our first payments have to go to the beneficiaries under this plan that was transferred and the rest of you will get, will get the 34
leavings? to do that.
I don't think that the plan has the authority
Well, Justice Scalia, it does it
in exactly the same way the purchase of an insurance policy to provide annuities from an insurer does. each case the assets are commingled with the entire assets of the financial institution to which these liabilities are transferred. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But I thought we In
just heard that the PBGC might look at it a little differently, that they are more comfortable with the annuity insuring that these beneficiaries get their benefits as opposed to just throwing the beneficiaries into a pool with your other union members. MS. CLARK: Mr. Chief Justice, it's very
clear that if as we are correct -- I mean, as we argue here, if we're correct that it is a fiduciary responsibility for the plan administrator to select the option on the table that is most secure for providing the benefits in the future to the participants, that if the multiemployer plan in question were poorly funded or shaky for any other reason and there is a solid insurance company offering an annuity, that the plan administrator would -CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 35
Doesn't this put you
in an awfully difficult position?
representing the union, which has other members besides these beneficiaries, and you're saying even though under their plan the beneficiaries are fully protected with irrevocable annuities, we think they're going to be better off if they're thrown in with our other members and we get the $5 million to spread out, not to these beneficiaries but among all these other members. that an awkward position to be in? MS. CLARK: The plan administrator is the The union Isn't
one that ultimately makes the determination.
may advocate for what it believes to be in the best interest of its members, but the party that makes the decision is the plan administrator wearing a fiduciary hat under which it can make no decisions -JUSTICE ALITO: Well, why would the
beneficiaries be better off if there were a merger? What would their benefit be, as opposed to an annuity? MS. CLARK: Probably the single advantage to
participants in a multiemployer plan is portability, which is to say some of these participants were working for employers that purchased facilities from Crown and if their employer participated in the multiemployer plan in the future they would be able to add to the benefits that they had accrued and perhaps to reach something 36
like an enhanced benefit at 25 years of service or the like. In terms of advantage to the participant in
comparison to an annuity, that would be the major one. But I want to come back to why it is that the multiemployer plan distributes the assets in precisely the same way that the purchase of an annuity from an insurance company does. JUSTICE SCALIA: Does it make a commitment,
a commitment to fully provide all benefit liabilities under the now deceased plan? MS. CLARK: The law requires that. Yes, it does, Justice Scalia. In any plan merger or transfer
of assets and liabilities from one plan to the other, the fundamental requirement is that all benefits earned to the date of the transfer must be protected on both sides of the transaction for all participants. JUSTICE BREYER: work this out now. What's the -- I'm trying to
Suppose I buy the annuity for these
employees from the X insurance company, all right, and so the insurance company promises when they retire we'll pay them a thousand dollars a month. company goes bankrupt. Suppose the
Does the, what is it, the PGPB,
what do you call it, the Pension Guarantee -MS. CLARK: PBGC. Yes. Do they pick up any
JUSTICE BREYER: 37
of that? MS. CLARK: They do not. They do not, okay. So I'm
trying to understand this, then, the reg under this, and it says: Administrator, you buy the, the annuity from
an insurance company, for example, or do the same thing, get an irrevocable commitment in another permitted form. So one question is when they do that the administrator doesn't have to have any fiduciary thought in his mind. The second position is -- that's their position. The second position is, even if that's so,
this is not another permitted form because a merger isn't a determination. And the third position is,
that's what we were just getting to, is that we don't see any way in which this could help the employee. you say, oh yes, there is a way. Now suppose we're choosing between two insurance companies. Insurance company A says: We will Now
pay precisely what is owed, precisely; we're as solid as a rock. it says: Insurance company B is hungry for business, so We'll give those employees exactly what's owed Now, is
and we'll write each of them a check for $500.
that something that means then -- remember, this statute says you have to get what they promised them and not a penny more. Is that something that the insurance, the 38
administrator then has to do?
He has to take B because
the insurance company is promising him a bonus? MS. CLARK: No. Well then, if not that why
JUSTICE BREYER: this? MS. CLARK: No.
made clear that when making a fiduciary choice among annuities that are offered by an insurer, it is the plan administrator's fiduciary duty to look to the security of the benefit. That is its sole guiding concern. And beyond as well?
I mean, let's say we have 5 million extra dollars here. See, that's what I don't understand. If you're saying
it's a fiduciary, I mean, how can they make a decision ever to do anything other than just give the five million to the beneficiaries? MS. CLARK: Mr. Chief Justice. That would depend on the plan,
If the plan -Well, the terms, the
plans terms here, did not provide for merger in the event of termination, right? MS. CLARK: No, we disagree. The district
court determined that they did authorize the merger for this purpose. JUSTICE SCALIA: 39
The other side said that
the district court found that the argument was waived, or the court of appeals did. MS. CLARK: Justice Scalia, it was the court The
of appeals that held that the argument was waived. court of appeals said that because this was not presented in the bankruptcy court that the argument would not be considered by the court of appeals in Petitioner's urging the court of appeals to overturn what the district court had done. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: district court decided it? Even though the
Usually in a waiver
situation it's whether you argued it or whether it was addressed by the court. MS. CLARK: In this case, I could see a
reason why that would make sense, because in the bankruptcy proceeding both parties presented evidence, and the interpretation of a plan document is like interpreting any other contract. You may have the
opportunity to present evidence on what it means. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If you're -- if you
prevail here -- I mean, the reason we have a case is because the employer overfunded the plan to the tune of $5 million. If you prevail and they cannot get that
back even after fully insuring the benefits for the beneficiaries, employers in the future will be very 40
careful not to put in one penny more than what's required to fund the plan; isn't that right. MS. CLARK: Mr. Chief Justice, I don't
believe that that's the case, because the funding rules of ERISA do encourage employers to fund well at times when times are good. But -Well, if you prevail won't
plan documents or shouldn't plan documents be amended to say that merger is not an option and any reversion goes to the employer? MS. CLARK: Justice Kennedy. That may well be the case,
Or they may say whatever the method of
implementing the termination that the plan administrator chooses, it must provide for a reversion to the employer. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What possible
equitable basis does the union have to claim this extra $5 million? MS. CLARK: The actual -It's not for these It's spread These
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: beneficiaries.
out among this pool in the multiemployer plan. are the employer excess contributions.
What -- looking
at it as an equitable matter, what claim do they have to the extra money? 41
Mr. Chief Justice, I could One is that the record of
answer that on two levels.
this case does not preclude the possibility that this would have been negotiated to leave the reversion for the employer. But that's speculation because, since the
fiduciary didn't go down that path, we don't know where it could have taken it. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Are there a lot of
plans that look like that, that if there's extra money, we've overfunded that it goes back to the union, not back to the company? MS. CLARK: It never goes to the union.
That would be violation of a different section of Federal law. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: MS. CLARK: The union plan. The reason --
But to a plan.
and plans simply don't address this, except for authorize merger -JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, how could the
administrator, how could the administrator negotiate with the employer to give the $5 million back if it's with a fiduciary? MS. CLARK: If the employer had said, had
amended the plan to say, whatever you do by way of terminating this plan, you must protect our right to the 42
reversion, then the plan administrator would have been -JUSTICE KENNEDY: would have been amended. Well, I suppose if it
But what happens, what happens
if the employer wants to continue in business, but simply turn the plan over to a multiemployer plan? Is
that a fiduciary -- and you have an employer that wears two hats. The employer is also the administrator. Is
that a fiduciary decision? MS. CLARK: No, Justice Kennedy, it is not,
because there there really is an impact on the form and the amount of benefits that will be accrued in the future under an ongoing plan, as well as -JUSTICE KENNEDY: So then it's the ongoing
significance of the decision to the employer that determines whether there's a fiduciary obligation? MS. CLARK: No, Justice Kennedy. It's the
ongoing significance to the participants, because then what you have is truly a plan design decision, which does not come within plan administration, while in the case of a merger as a means of implementing termination the law fixes those benefits. JUSTICE KENNEDY: They are what they are. I can't see why it's a
fiduciary obligation in case A -- a sponsor obligation in case A and a fiduciary obligation in case B. 43
just depends on the sequence of timing. MS. CLARK: timing. Again, it's not, it's not the In a case like this one,
where the employer is clearly going out of business, it's talking termination, it's got annuity quotes on the table, it's, everything is the implementation of the termination of the plan. If instead this employer
remains in business and is continuing to employ people who are going to be accruing benefits in the future, then that is the question of what are the benefits they are going to be accruing in the future. JUSTICE SOUTER: Okay. But what about the
employees who are on board at the time the merger decision is made? Are you saying that an, an employer
who continues to operate can say, I'm going to merge my sound plan, I'm sick of having to worry about it, I'm going to merge this financially sound plan into plan A out here, which is very, very shaky, and I know perfectly well that plan A, you know, may very well collapse, but I don't care. what I have. I just want to get rid of
Is that an option for the plan sponsor? That would be a plan sponsor
decision, but the plan sponsor would be subjecting itself to obligations for future enhanced funding of the plan that it joins. 44
Could you go back for just
one second to Justice Alito's question, because that's what I'm having trouble with, because I think the question is what, assuming you're right on all the other points for argument's sake, but what is the advantage to the worker here? And the answer I heard you give was
the advantage is, well, maybe the worker if he goes and works in the right place will get some more money. Well, and I wonder is that relevant. And
you told me in respect to the two insurance companies it wasn't relevant. So if it isn't relevant in respect to
the two insurance companies, how can that be relevant here, and if that isn't relevant here what is the possible advantage to the worker? MS. CLARK: Justice Breyer, I believe I was
cut off and didn't finish my answer to your question when you asked it before. In determining which of two
annuities on the table are to be chosen, the Department of Labor's instructions to employers have clearly said if they're equal on the basis of safety and security of the benefits, then it's appropriate for the fiduciary to take other considerations into account. So our position
here would be that, by parallel to that, if the fiduciary were to conclude that the multiemployer plan is of equal safety and security to the participants 45
benefits that they have earned to date, it would then be able to take into consideration in the interest of participants any other difference. JUSTICE BREYER: So then you're saying that
the answer -- we have annuity company A and B, they're identical, the worker has a pension that promises them $1,000 a month, not a penny more, and company A says, we'll give you $500 extra. Then in your opinion under
the current regs and so forth, the administrator must choose that company; is that right? MS. CLARK: Only if the two companies are
equivalent in terms of their security. JUSTICE BREYER: I said they are equivalent
in terms of -- of the security and so forth; they are each good companies and one will write out a check for $500, which is what I thought my example was. And now
you're saying under the law the fiduciary must choose the first but you're hesitating on that which means I think I don't understand it fully. MS. CLARK: I'm trying to make sure that I
understand your question fully, Justice Breyer. The, the choice must be made and the Department of Labor's instructions to employers are very clear on this, in the interest of the security of those benefits which have been accrued, that's the guiding 46
principle, (i) single to the rights and interests of the beneficiaries. If they are equal, then the Department
of Labor guidelines permit the fiduciary to take other factors into consideration. So that the first decision
has to be made in terms of the security of those benefits that the individual has already earned. JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, I don't think, I just It seems to me that
don't read 1341 the way you do.
little (i) at the top of your page 2a is a safe harbor. I don't think that the, even if it is a fiduciary decision that he has to, once he has found an insurer that is rock solid, that is willing to provide all the benefit liabilities, I don't think he has to look throughout the rest of the world to see if there is anything that might be better for his plan participants. I think that's a safe harbor and if he purchases an irrevocable commitment from an insurer and then that insurer is as solvent as any other insurer he is home free. You're saying he is not home free. He has to
consider little (ii) and see what other ways of fully providing all benefit liabilities might be better for the plan participants. I -- I think that's, that's
placing on him an obligation that I don't see there. MS. CLARK: Well, Justice Scalia, a safe
harbor doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't 47
appropriate for the fiduciary to consider other alternatives. It would mean I believe if he chooses an
annuity that is a safe and secure way to provide the benefit and is equally good with anything else, he would be solidly protected from any challenge that a participant might make. JUSTICE KENNEDY: me. Well -- excuse me. Excuse
I'm just not sure I understand your answer. If the employer finds the rock solid
insurance company under -- pardon me, the administrator finds the rock solid insurance company under Justice Scalia's hypothetical under (i) he must consider all other options under (ii)? MS. CLARK: If -- if options have been
proposed and they are of equal or better security for the participants, yes, Justice Kennedy. JUSTICE SOUTER: And you're saying in this
case, this is sort of the square one question that I want to be clear on. You're saying in this case simply
that the employer had to give consideration to PACE's proposal rather than cutting off consideration, we presume in part, because of the issue of the $5 million. It had to think about it some more. MS. CLARK: Is that correct?
Yes, Justice Souter. Okay.
JUSTICE SOUTER: 48
Counsel, your little
(ii) that you're relying on begins by saying in accordance with the provisions of the plan, the other solution otherwise provides. Where in the provisions of
the plan does it say that they will consider merger? MS. CLARK: That was what the district court
found, that the provisions of the plan authorized the merger, as an option. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Do you know, is
there a particular provision in the plan that says that? Or -MS. CLARK: The district court cited what it
was relying on; I don't have those at my fingertips. JUSTICE GINSBURG: Was it specific in the
plan or it just didn't exclude, the plan didn't exclude the possibility of merger? MS. CLARK: Well -- the usual reading of a
term in accordance with means that it must not violate. It must be consistent with the terms of that plan. JUSTICE GINSBURG: So that could be if they Just
just didn't say anything so it would be a choice.
like it doesn't say, may not say anything about a lump sum, which would be an alternative. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: accordance with the way you do. 49
But your point -I don't read in
I read in accordance
with to mean provided by the plan. MS. CLARK: Certainly if the plan has a If the plan is
provision then it must be followed.
silent, Mr. Chief Justice, your -- your question suggests that there must be an affirmative authorization in the plan. The district court found there was
sufficient authorization here in whatever form that the district court found satisfactory. And because that
issue was not raised in a bankruptcy court there was no opportunity to present evidence on that matter. JUSTICE GINSBURG: position is twofold? Do I understand that your
One is you say you -- you put this
on the table, the board was bound to consider it with their fiduciary hat. consider it. So it's not just that they were to
But they had to consider it as a fiduciary
and not as a sponsor? MS. CLARK: Precisely, Justice Ginsburg. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Clark.
Now, I have -- my time is up.
Mr. Baker, you have three minutes remaining. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF M. MILLER BAKER, ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
I'm going to turn -- cover a couple points on function and then turn to the statutory question. 50
First, I would like to return the Court to the factual context of this case. In this case, PACE
made not a two-step proposal, PACE proposed an outright merger in which all assets and liabilities would be transferred to the PACE union. That's in the record. And what's
significant about the merger proposal that PACE sent to Crown is that this is PACE's merger proposal. It had
Crown signing the merger in Crown's planned sponsor capacity not as a, not as an administrator but as a plan sponsor. That's what PACE proposed, recognizing that
the decision whether to merge the plan was a plan sponsor function. I'd like to turn now to the question of the, also the second stage issue here. Even, even if this
was a two-stage transaction, which was not proposed, each stage of that transaction is a plan sponsor decision. A plan sponsor has to make the decision
whether to transfer assets and then a plan sponsor has to make the decision whether or not to then terminate the plan. function. In terms of the plan sponsor function changing because the company is going out of business, that simply cannot be. A plan sponsor function depends 51
Each separate stage is a plan sponsor
upon what the function is, and it doesn't matter whether the business is going out of business or whether the business is an ongoing concern. If anything, because
it's going out of business, it's important to protect the, the discretion of a plan sponsor. In terms of the contextual argument it's very important to note that nowhere -- that Section 1341 which governs standard termination does not cross-reference mergers and the Section 1412 governing mergers does not apply to terminations. In fact the
only place in the statute where the two words appear together is in Section 1058, in which the two procedures are actually compared to each other. There are some significant differences between termination and merger. is a reversion to the company. In a termination, there There is also reversion
to employees based upon their individual contributions. There is no similar reversion in a merger. That is why The
a merger simply cannot be a method of termination. two are different. You might have a two-stage
transaction but they are two separate transactions each of which is a plan sponsor function. JUSTICE SCALIA: I'm not sure I understand
what you mean by a reversion to the employees who have made contributions. They get their cash back? 52
If employees, under 1334,
if employees have made individual contributions to the plan, it's not merely paid for by the employer -JUSTICE SCALIA: MR. BAKER: Right.
-- the employee has a right to a
pro rata percentage of the surplus plan assets in the event of termination. There is no similar right of
reversion to the employee in the event of a merger. JUSTICE SOUTER: What if the plan, the plan
provides that in the event of a merger there will in fact be a reversion to the employees, if they've paid in too much or to, or to the sponsor if the sponsor has overfunded, and there will be no merger except on those terms? Is that enforceable? MR. BAKER: your question. JUSTICE SOUTER: If the plan document says I'm not sure I -- I understand
look, if we decide to merge, anybody who has paid in more than he has to, employee or employer, gets the money back or there's no merger. In other words it's
going to be the terms of the merger that there is a reversion. Can a plan provide for that? MR. BAKER: A plan cannot provide for that
because it would be contrary to ERISA, Justice Souter. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 53
The case is submitted. (Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the case in the above-titled matter was submitted.)
A able 4:13 36:24 46:2 above-entitled 1:16 above-titled 54:3 absence 15:6 absolutely 7:11 10:16,24 17:18 abstract 33:4 acceptable 33:4 accepted 7:20 account 45:22 accrued 4:15 12:19 21:22 25:22 36:25 43:12 46:25 accruing 44:9 44:11 acquiring 6:5 12:18 acting 18:11 actual 14:19 41:19 add 36:24 addition 20:23 23:13 address 23:7 30:25 42:17 addressed 22:20 40:13 administer 9:1 administration 28:5,9 43:20 administrative 18:3 administrator 6:9 7:4,14 17:23 18:2,3,7 18:10 19:6 20:14 21:4,13 21:17 24:1,6,8 24:11,16 27:3 28:14,18 29:9 30:23 31:5 33:19,23 35:18
35:24 36:10,14 38:5,8 39:1 41:13 42:20,20 43:1,8 46:9 48:10 51:10 administrator's 29:24 39:9 admitted 28:25 advantage 36:19 37:2 45:5,7,14 adversaries 33:7 adversary 31:19 31:25 32:2 advocate 36:12 affect 20:16 affirmative 50:5 agencies 16:19 25:13 agree 11:1 30:1 30:7 agreed 34:10 aircraft 5:7 AL 1:11 Alito 16:9,14,15 36:16 Alito's 16:24 45:2 allocating 23:18 allow 27:5 all-in 32:20 alter 19:2 20:9 23:10 alternative 8:8 15:23 49:23 alternatives 48:2 amend 5:8 27:5 amended 41:8 42:24 43:4 amicus 1:24 3:7 18:19 amount 7:8 43:12 analyze 7:5 annuities 8:8 9:20 14:6,9,14 14:15,18,19,20
14:23,23 19:12 25:16,21 26:24 32:6 35:5 36:5 39:8 45:18 annuitize 26:14 annuity 5:16,17 5:20 7:3,9,13 7:20,23 8:11 12:12 14:10,15 16:11 26:22 31:7 33:24 35:12,23 36:18 37:3,6,18 38:5 44:5 46:5 48:3 answer 6:1 11:2 11:24 13:2,9 13:13,17,21 27:1 42:2 45:6 45:16 46:5 48:8 anybody 53:18 anymore 19:16 anyway 11:9 apart 30:17 apologize 13:21 appeal 19:14 appeals 22:12 22:17 23:4 40:2,4,5,7,8 appear 21:13 52:11 APPEARAN... 1:19 appendix 27:22 33:21,22 applicable 34:2 apply 52:10 appropriate 45:21 48:1 April 1:14 argue 35:16 argued 17:8 40:12 argument 1:17 3:2,5,9,12 4:3 4:7 8:3 11:14 15:17,22,23
16:2 18:17 19:10,25 22:1 22:9,17,19 27:12 28:19 31:3 33:7 40:1 40:4,6 50:21 52:6 arguments 11:3 27:16 argument's 45:5 arises 23:11 arrived 9:6 asked 22:15 45:17 asking 11:13 12:25 assets 4:16 5:20 5:23 7:23 8:7 9:6,21,22,24 10:20,21 17:5 19:16,17,20 20:16 21:2 23:17,20 24:17 24:18,19 25:3 25:17,19 26:11 26:12,17 28:8 28:21 29:1,5 29:18 30:13 31:6 32:14,18 32:24 33:8,13 35:6,7 37:5,13 51:4,19 53:6 assigned 28:13 Assistant 1:22 associated 16:4 assume 8:23 11:7,16 16:25 17:4 22:23 23:3 25:25 assuming 29:3 45:4 attorney 28:25 29:11 authority 28:4,7 29:9 34:23 35:1 authorization
50:5,7 authorize 39:23 42:18 authorized 49:7 automatic 12:3 12:19 automatically 18:5 available 20:17 20:18 21:15,20 awfully 36:1 awkward 36:9 a.m 1:18 4:2 B B 17:2,23 38:20 39:1 43:25 46:5 back 17:24 21:7 37:4 40:24 42:10,11,21 45:1 52:25 53:20 Baker 1:20 3:3 3:13 4:6,7,9 5:25 7:1,11 8:12,18 9:10 9:23 10:5,9,16 10:24 11:6,12 11:24 12:8,15 13:12,20 14:7 14:17,25 15:3 15:11,14,22 16:3,13,18 17:7,18,25 18:10,14 19:25 20:11 50:20,21 50:23 53:1,5 53:15,23 bankrupt 20:2 37:22 bankruptcy 4:11 22:19 40:6,16 50:9 based 22:18 52:17 baseline 34:12
basic 10:13 13:7 basis 22:12 41:17 45:20 Beck 1:3 4:4 beginning 5:6 27:18 begins 49:2 behalf 1:20,24 2:1 3:4,7,11,14 4:8 18:18 27:13 50:22 believe 41:4 45:15 48:2 believes 36:12 beneficiaries 5:24 7:24 9:21 14:24 17:14,17 33:9,14,15,16 34:19,21,24 35:12,13 36:3 36:4,8,17 39:16 40:25 41:21 47:2 benefit 17:6,13 18:24 33:25 34:3 36:18 37:1,9 39:10 47:13,21 48:4 benefits 4:15,16 6:13,14 9:15 12:1,17,19 14:3 16:8 20:16,17,18,20 21:3,11,22,23 23:22 25:22 26:14 32:6 33:15 35:13,20 36:24 37:14 40:24 43:12,22 44:9,10 45:21 46:1,25 47:6 best 5:24 6:22 14:10 19:18 36:12 better 36:6,17 47:15,21 48:15 beyond 39:11
binding 24:1 bit 31:12 board 11:17 44:13 50:13 bonus 39:2 bother 13:9 bound 50:13 breached 4:23 Breyer 12:21 13:14,17 37:17 37:25 38:3 39:4 45:1,15 46:4,13,21 brief 27:22 32:12 33:21 briefs 10:10 broad 13:22 building 15:8 business 5:14 8:24 11:25 12:6 19:15 20:2,3,7 38:20 43:5 44:4,8 51:24 52:2,2,3 52:4 buy 9:20 26:22 37:18 38:5
44:3 48:18,19 51:2,2 54:1,2 cases 16:19 25:14 cash 52:25 certain 29:13 certainly 22:11 50:2 challenge 48:5 change 5:14 20:12,13,22,22 changing 51:24 characterize 12:11 characterized 20:3 check 38:22 46:15 Chief 4:3,9 15:13,16,23 17:9 18:15,20 27:10,14 35:9 35:15,25 39:11 39:18,19 40:10 40:20 41:3,16 41:20 42:1,8 42:15 49:1,9 49:24 50:4,19 C 50:23 53:25 C 3:1 4:1 choice 12:2 19:1 call 37:23 19:4,23 23:10 capacity 21:5 31:5 39:7 24:1 25:8 31:1 46:22 49:21 51:10 choices 9:19 care 26:4 44:20 11:19 careful 41:1 choose 21:14 carefully 18:4 46:10,17 carry 19:6 chooses 41:14 case 4:4 8:10,11 48:2 8:13 11:9 20:6 choosing 5:16 20:10 22:13 5:21 20:25 27:25 28:3,10 38:17 28:24 33:1,12 chosen 45:18 34:9,14 35:6 Circuit 4:23 5:1 40:14,21 41:4 circumstances 41:11 42:3 25:21 43:21,24,25,25 circumvention
25:15 cited 32:12 49:12 citing 28:12 claim 41:17,24 Clark 2:1 3:10 27:11,12,14 28:23 29:10 30:1,7,24 31:17,20,24 32:2,10 33:10 33:17 35:3,15 36:10,19 37:11 37:24 38:2 39:3,6,17,22 40:3,14 41:3 41:11,19 42:1 42:12,16,23 43:10,17 44:2 44:22 45:15 46:11,20 47:24 48:14,24 49:6 49:12,17 50:2 50:17,19 clear 30:16 32:11,13 35:16 39:7 46:24 48:19 clearly 44:4 45:19 code 21:16 28:11 collapse 44:20 come 8:1,4 37:4 43:20 comfortable 35:11 commingled 23:21 35:6 commitment 34:19 37:8,9 38:7 47:17 commitments 33:23 companies 19:11 26:22 38:18 45:10,12
46:11,15 company 1:7 5:17 6:19,23 6:24,25 7:3,8 12:6 13:19 19:14 20:1 26:25 35:23 37:7,19,20,22 38:6,18,20 39:2 42:11 46:5,7,10 48:10,11 51:24 52:16 compared 52:13 comparison 37:3 complete 32:15 completely 30:1 30:7 31:9 32:5 complies 16:22 composition 19:2 20:9 23:10 conceivably 25:11 concept 32:19 concern 39:10 52:3 concerned 22:25 conclude 45:24 confusion 21:7 Congress 28:11 34:13 connection 13:25 consider 5:4 6:3 6:21 7:7 13:6 18:4,8,11,23 26:11 47:20 48:1,12 49:5 50:13,15,15 consideration 46:2 47:4 48:20,21 considerations 45:22 considered 40:7
considering 4:24 19:8 consistent 13:7 22:4 24:8 49:19 consistently 26:6 constitute 28:22 construed 22:21 34:5 construing 22:1 content 6:11 8:21 14:3 16:7 context 7:12 23:11 44:3 51:2 contextual 52:6 continuation 29:20 32:8 continue 32:21 43:5 continues 44:15 continuing 5:6 44:8 contract 40:18 contrary 53:24 contributions 4:18 41:23 52:17,25 53:2 control 28:7 convert 29:23 correct 6:1,17 10:24 11:6,11 11:12 17:18 31:17 35:16,17 48:23 correctly 22:12 29:4 Counsel 18:15 27:10 49:1 53:25 couple 50:24 course 19:21 28:19,23 court 1:1,17 4:10 5:1 6:14 18:21 22:12,16
6:18 7:15,16 7:17,22,22 8:2 8:5,8 9:2,3,9,9 9:13 10:2,3,4,5 10:6,7 11:25 12:6,9,14,15 13:23 14:1,7 14:15,15,17,18 14:22,24 15:17 16:6,6,7,20 18:25,25 19:3 19:4,7,8 20:9 21:5,8,9 23:4,5 23:9 25:2,5,5,5 26:3 29:23,24 29:25 30:8,9 30:10,12,21,22 31:4,13,15,15 31:20 36:14 39:14 43:9,15 43:19 44:14,23 47:4,11 51:12 51:18,18,20 decisions 5:5,7 7:21 8:5,10,11 8:12 25:7 27:19 28:14 31:1 36:15 defined 18:23 definition 27:17 Department D 1:23 39:6 D 1:22 3:6 4:1 45:18 46:23 18:17 47:2 date 37:15 46:1 depend 39:17 deal 8:25 depends 7:1 deceased 37:10 13:21 44:1 decide 11:22,25 51:25 13:2 16:16 depriving 27:8 19:22 24:17 describes 32:22 27:3 53:18 design 19:2 20:9 decided 4:12 8:7 23:10 43:19 22:13 40:11 determination decides 7:19 12:13 30:4,6 12:23 36:11 38:13 decision 4:19 determined 6:2,2,15,16,18 39:23 22:19,20 23:3 23:7 27:15 28:13 33:3 34:4 39:23 40:1,2,3,5,6,7 40:8,9,11,13 49:6,12 50:6,8 50:9 51:1 court's 5:5 16:19 23:4 27:19 cover 50:24 create 5:8 creditors 4:17 crimes 34:6 cross-reference 52:9 Crown 1:5,6 4:11,13,19,22 4:23 5:3 36:22 51:8,9 Crown's 4:17 51:9 curiae 1:24 3:8 18:19 current 46:9 Curtiss-Wright 5:6 cut 45:16 cutting 48:21
determines 43:16 determining 29:15 45:17 difference 31:4 46:3 differences 52:14 different 5:21 8:18 9:11 16:4 31:9 32:5 42:13 52:20 differently 35:11 difficult 11:20 36:1 directors 11:17 disagree 13:14 31:22 33:17 39:22 discourage 27:9 discretion 21:17 52:5 discretionary 28:3,4 disposition 9:23 28:8 dispute 6:10 16:12,13 dissenting 34:9 distinct 23:16 distribute 5:23 7:23 10:19 15:5,8 19:16 distributed 10:21 23:18 33:8,13,14 distributes 37:5 distribution 15:5 19:20 21:8,10,14,20 25:17 34:14 district 22:20 23:4 39:22 40:1,9,11 49:6 49:12 50:6,8 document 14:8
14:12 23:23 24:2 40:17 53:17 documents 21:10 22:25 41:8,8 doing 19:12 25:9 dollars 37:21 39:12 duties 5:11 7:5 11:21 duty 4:24 5:4 6:21 7:6,9,10 11:22 13:1,6 16:17,18 18:4 18:22 19:6 24:6 39:9 D.C 1:13,20,23 2:1 E E 3:1 4:1,1 earned 37:14 46:1 47:6 effort 26:16 either 9:20 20:24 31:6 elects 5:16 eliminate 9:8 employ 44:8 employee 38:15 53:5,8,19 employees 6:22 7:7 11:21 17:6 17:10,11 18:9 18:12 19:18 21:3 27:4 37:19 38:21 44:13 52:17,24 53:1,2,11 employer 5:16 6:7 12:22 17:15 18:8,22 19:21,23 20:12 20:23 21:9,19 21:19 23:24 24:3,15 25:1,4
25:7 26:18 29:4,17 32:11 36:23 40:22 41:10,15,23 42:5,21,23 43:5,7,8,15 44:4,7,14 48:9 48:20 53:3,19 employers 17:12 36:22 40:25 41:5 45:19 46:23 encourage 41:5 encourages 27:7 enforceable 53:14 enhanced 37:1 44:24 entire 29:12,16 35:6 entitled 23:24 34:20 entity 32:21 equal 45:20,25 47:2 48:15 equally 48:4 equitable 41:17 41:24 equivalent 46:12,13 ERISA 5:10 7:4 21:15 24:8,9 26:6 27:18 41:5 53:24 ESQ 1:20,22 2:1 3:3,6,10,13 ESTATES 1:5 ET 1:11 etcetera 7:9 event 39:21 53:7 53:8,10 everybody 7:21 evidence 40:16 40:19 50:10 exactly 14:5 34:8 35:4 38:21
example 12:3 38:6 46:16 excess 23:25 29:5 41:23 exchange 10:11 exclude 49:15 49:15 excuse 48:7,7 executed 10:7 execution 12:9 12:12,13 13:15 exercises 28:7 Exhibit 51:6 expense 34:20 explain 32:9 exploring 11:4 extent 27:23 28:3,6 extra 17:5 26:23 39:12 41:17,25 42:9 46:8 extract 26:17
47:3,10 48:1 50:14,15 filing 4:11 final 30:17 finally 6:12 financial 35:7 financially 44:17 finds 48:9,11 fine 24:13 29:22 fingertips 49:13 finish 45:16 first 5:2 6:4 8:5 11:14 16:2 18:24 20:6 27:21 29:6,18 30:14 34:23 46:18 47:4 51:1 five 17:16 24:12 24:23 25:10 26:1,6,23 39:15 F fixes 43:22 facilities 36:22 flaky 6:24 fact 24:3 25:12 flexible 32:19 26:10 52:10 flowing 18:5 53:11 focus 29:12,16 factors 6:4 47:4 32:3 factual 51:2 follow 14:13 Federal 42:14 24:9 fiduciary 4:24 followed 25:19 5:4,10,18 6:18 34:6 50:3 7:5,10 11:4,11 following 33:18 11:15,22 13:1 follows 34:12 13:6 14:16,24 force 28:20 15:9 16:16,17 forcefully 19:11 16:18 17:3,22 form 5:21 6:5,8 17:25 18:1,8 8:20,24 9:15 18:11,22 20:4 9:17,22 11:25 21:5 24:1 25:8 14:3 16:7 27:17,19,23 29:19 31:3 35:17 36:14 38:7,12 43:11 38:9 39:7,9,14 50:7 42:6,22 43:7,9 formal 30:14 43:16,24,25 forms 21:20,21 45:21,24 46:17 21:21
forth 46:9,14 found 40:1 47:11 49:7 50:6,8 free 47:19,19 full 27:9 fully 21:3 27:7 34:2 36:4 37:9 40:24 46:19,21 47:20 function 5:3,18 7:2,2,4 13:22 13:24,25,25 15:6 18:3 19:1 19:5 27:20 50:24 51:13,22 51:23,25 52:1 52:22 functions 5:9,9 19:4 fund 23:21 27:7 41:2,5 fundamental 37:14 fundamentally 20:12 funded 35:21 funding 17:12 23:25 27:9 41:4 44:24 future 35:20 36:24 40:25 43:13 44:9,11 44:24
38:21 39:15 42:21 45:6 46:8 48:20 gives 7:24 go 12:24 17:5,5 34:22,24 42:6 45:1 goes 6:7,11 7:17 8:20,20 11:9 12:2 16:7 21:6 26:24 27:24 37:22 41:9 42:10,12 45:7 going 5:13,17,23 6:20 8:6 9:1,5 9:18 11:18,22 12:1,7,17 15:8 16:10 17:10 19:15,15 20:1 20:7,8,11,13 20:14,15,17,20 20:21 21:20 24:11,22,23 25:24 26:18 29:17 30:3,17 36:5 44:4,9,11 44:15,17 50:24 51:24 52:2,4 53:21 good 8:25 17:12 41:6 46:15 48:4 governing 52:9 Government 27:16 29:11 G 31:8 G 4:1 Government's General 1:23 28:25 32:10,22 generalization governs 52:8 13:22 guarantee 20:19 getting 38:14 26:23 37:23 Ginsburg 5:12 guidelines 25:13 5:25 19:10,24 25:14,17 29:11 49:14,20 50:11 29:16 30:16,25 50:17 47:3 give 9:7,21,21 guiding 39:10 17:24 27:3 46:25
important 52:4 52:7 H 1:3 importantly hand 11:2 6:12 hanky-panky impossible 10:7 30:3 imprecise 13:20 happened 13:5 13:21 happens 43:4,4 increase 20:15 harbor 47:9,16 independent 5:2 47:25 individual 4:18 harm 34:7 47:6 52:17 hat 6:20 36:15 53:2 50:14 insofar 22:24 hats 43:8 institution 35:7 hear 4:3 13:10 instructions heard 13:1,2 45:19 46:23 35:10 45:6 insurance 5:17 held 4:23 22:7 6:23,24,25 7:3 22:17 40:4 7:8 12:6 13:18 help 17:17 38:15 19:11 26:21,24 hesitating 46:18 35:4,23 37:7 hold 5:7 37:19,20 38:6 home 47:18,19 38:18,18,20,25 Honor 21:6 39:2 45:10,12 22:22 23:3 48:10,11 25:12 26:2,9 insured 33:24 Hughes 5:7 insurer 33:24 hungry 38:20 35:5 39:8 hypothetical 47:11,17,18,18 48:12 insuring 35:12 I 40:24 interest 7:7 identical 46:6 14:10 17:5 ii 47:20 48:13 18:8,11 20:25 49:2 27:6,7 36:13 illustrates 20:10 46:2,24 immediately interests 6:22 28:12 11:20 47:1 impact 43:11 Internal 14:20 implement International 30:11 1:10 4:4 implementation 29:11 30:15,25 interpretation 40:17 44:6 interpreting implementing 40:18 28:15 31:5,10 investments 33:19 41:13 34:22 43:21 H
involved 16:9 involves 34:7 irrevocable 33:23 34:18 36:5 38:7 47:17 isolation 21:13 issue 7:2 12:3 13:22,25 28:24 48:22 50:9 51:15 issues 16:4 17:7 i.e 11:21 J James 34:4 JEFFREY 1:3 job 17:12 joins 44:25 joint 25:14 judge 34:12 JULIA 2:1 3:10 27:12 Justice 1:23 4:3 4:9 5:12,25,25 6:17 7:1,6,11 7:18 8:13,15 8:19,22 9:10 9:17,24,25 10:9,14,18,25 11:1,1,7,13,15 11:24 12:5,10 12:16,21,25 13:10,12,13,17 13:18 14:5,12 14:18,22,25 15:2,7,13,14 15:16,23 16:1 16:3,9,14,15 16:24,24 17:8 17:9,21 18:7 18:13,15,20 19:10,24 21:4 21:25 22:6,8 22:14,23 23:23 24:5,10,20 25:9,25 26:4
26:20 27:10,14 28:19,23 29:6 29:10,22 30:2 30:7,19,24 31:11,17,19,22 31:25 32:7 33:6,10,12,17 34:16 35:3,9 35:15,25 36:16 37:8,11,17,25 38:3 39:4,11 39:18,19,25 40:3,10,20 41:3,7,12,16 41:20 42:1,8 42:15,19 43:3 43:10,14,17,23 44:12 45:1,2 45:15 46:4,13 46:21 47:7,24 48:7,11,16,17 48:24,25 49:1 49:9,14,20,24 50:4,11,17,19 50:23 52:23 53:4,9,17,24 53:25 K keep 10:14 26:1 26:6 Kennedy 6:17 7:1,6,12,12 11:1,7,13,24 12:5,10,17,25 16:24 17:21 18:7 21:4 23:23 24:5 26:20 41:7,12 42:19 43:3,10 43:14,17,23 48:7,16 Kennedy's 13:18 kind 32:20 know 10:10 12:11 17:1,2
23:5 26:5,21 34:23 42:6 44:18,19 49:9 L Labor 39:6 47:3 Labor's 45:19 46:23 language 33:21 law 5:10 15:14 37:12 42:14 43:22 46:17 leave 26:12 42:4 leavings 35:1 left 24:13,13,25 30:15 legitimate 20:25 27:6 legitimately 29:15 letting 8:25 let's 8:23 16:25 39:12 level 6:13,14 12:17 16:8 levels 42:2 liabilities 24:17 25:3 26:11 29:1,19 31:6 32:15,18,23 33:25 34:3 35:8 37:9,13 47:13,21 51:4 likewise 7:16 LIQUIDATI... 1:4 list 34:6 listening 12:21 little 31:12 34:17 35:10 47:9,20 49:1 Lockheed 5:7 long 16:21 look 8:22 13:24 26:15 30:17 35:10 39:9 42:9 47:13
53:18 looking 30:20 41:23 looks 26:16 lose 17:4,7 lot 42:8 lower 20:20 lump 49:22 luxury 17:15 M M 1:20 3:3,13 4:7 50:21 major 28:24 37:3 majority 34:9 making 19:24 39:7 matter 1:16 6:4 30:12 41:24 50:10 52:1 54:3 MATTHEW 1:22 3:6 18:17 mean 13:5 14:17 16:15,16 31:8 35:16 36:1 39:12,14 40:21 47:25 48:2 50:1 52:24 means 15:24 18:23 19:20 31:10 33:5 34:10 38:23 40:19 43:21 46:18 49:18 mechanism 6:11 15:5 meet 34:17 meeting 11:17 members 4:17 17:14,19 35:14 36:2,6,8,13 mere 12:9,11,12 merely 53:3 merge 4:21 6:2 8:7,9,14,14,19
8:20 9:1,13 10:7,20 18:25 19:4,8,22 20:24 22:9 24:12,25 31:15 32:21 44:15,17 51:12 53:18 merged 20:8 merger 4:20,25 5:2,4,19 6:6 7:16 8:1,4,10 8:13 9:7,9,12 9:22 10:1,2,11 11:8,9 12:2,3 12:13,15,18 13:6 14:1 15:20,24 17:1 17:22 18:23 20:2,8 21:1 22:22,25 23:9 23:14,15,19 24:13 26:7 31:10 32:1,5,8 32:17,19,20,22 33:3,4,13 36:17 37:12 38:12 39:20,23 41:9 42:18 43:21 44:13 49:5,8,16 51:4 51:7,8,9 52:15 52:18,19 53:8 53:10,13,20,21 mergers 32:11 52:9,10 method 23:14 41:12 52:19 MILLER 1:20 3:3,13 4:7 50:21 million 4:16 16:10 17:10,17 24:12,22,23 25:10 26:1,7 26:23 36:7 39:12,16 40:23 41:18 42:21
48:22 mind 34:13 38:9 minutes 50:20 mistakenly 22:21 modify 5:8 money 15:9,19 17:19,24 18:5 41:25 42:9 45:8 53:20 month 37:21 46:7 multiemployer 5:14 6:6 35:21 36:20,23 37:5 41:22 43:6 45:24 multi-employer 4:22 19:13 20:13,20
18:1 43:16,24 43:24,25 47:23 obligations 44:24 obtain 21:2 occur 23:19 offer 14:17,18 offered 39:8 offering 14:23 35:23 oh 34:23 38:16 okay 12:23 38:3 44:12 48:25 once 10:5,6,6 12:13 15:17 47:11 ongoing 5:15,22 8:23 25:23 26:17 43:13,14 43:18 52:3 operate 44:15 N operation 5:22 N 3:1,1 4:1 15:14 necessarily 10:2 opinion 34:9 13:16,23 18:5 46:8 47:25 opportunity necessary 23:5,8 40:19 50:10 need 11:10 opposed 6:7 negotiate 42:20 35:13 36:18 negotiated 42:4 option 14:23 neither 27:15 17:2,23 18:4 never 42:12 22:10 24:21,25 new 6:9,9,10 35:19 41:9 33:14 44:21 49:8 Ninth 4:23 5:1 optional 21:22 nonfiduciary options 21:8,11 5:3 21:14,24 22:2 notable 27:15 48:13,14 note 14:20 52:7 oral 1:16 3:2,5,9 number 6:22 4:7 18:17 24:21,24 27:12 order 16:20 O 25:14 28:1 O 3:1 4:1 original 22:2 obey 24:6 32:17,25 obligation 11:4 outright 51:3 11:5 14:16 overfunded 17:4,22,25
17:16 40:22 42:10 53:13 oversee 30:2 overturn 40:8 over-funded 4:12 owed 38:19,21 P P 2:1 3:10 4:1 27:12 PACE 1:10 4:4 4:21,21 5:5 6:12 9:6,22 16:15 24:13,14 24:25 25:3 26:8 51:2,3,5,7 51:11 PACE's 6:5,8 48:20 51:8 page 3:2 27:22 33:22 47:9 paid 26:24 53:3 53:11,18 PAPER 1:7 parallel 45:23 paraphrasing 34:8 pardon 48:10 part 11:14 13:13 48:22 participant 37:2 48:6 participants 4:14 10:20,22 20:15,18 21:23 21:23 23:18,22 25:22,24 26:14 35:20 36:20,21 37:16 43:18 45:25 46:3 47:15,22 48:16 participated 36:23 participating 20:8 26:18 particular 49:10
parties 40:16 parts 29:18 party 36:13 path 42:6 pay 20:17,18 37:21 38:19 payments 34:23 PBGC 16:19 23:15 26:10,15 26:20 35:10 37:24 PBGC's 20:19 Pegram 5:7 penny 38:25 41:1 46:7 pension 4:12,13 4:18,20,21,22 5:8 18:24 28:16 37:23 46:6 people 10:23 44:8 percent 4:14 percentage 53:6 perfectly 16:21 44:19 performing 19:13 permissible 16:21 17:2 23:14 permit 21:13 22:22 29:17 47:3 permitted 11:9 15:12,21 17:23 38:7,12 person 27:22 persons 34:7 Petitioner 1:8 1:21,25 3:4,8 3:14 4:8 18:19 22:17,18 27:16 31:8 50:22 Petitioner's 40:8 PGPB 37:22 phrase 34:6,11
pick 6:23 21:24 37:25 picks 6:23 place 19:17 29:4 45:8 52:11 placing 47:23 Plaintiff's 51:6 plan 4:14,16,17 4:21,22 5:3,13 5:14,21 6:2,3,3 6:5,5,6,7,8,9,9 6:11,13,15,21 7:4,13,13,14 7:15,19,22 8:6 8:9,20,21,23 9:15,17,18,19 10:1,5,8,12 11:18 12:18 13:7,24 14:1,4 14:8,12 15:1,2 15:3,4,6,21 16:5,6,8,22 17:14,16,19 18:1,2,3,10,24 18:25 19:1,2,6 19:7,9,13,16 19:21,22,23 20:7,8,10,12 20:13,13,19,20 20:22,24 21:10 21:11,13,15,16 21:17,19 22:2 22:4,5,9,18,21 22:21,24,25 23:11,14,17,19 23:20,21,22,23 24:2,9,16,18 24:19,23,25 25:3,4,6,20,23 25:24 26:3,5 26:12,15,17,19 27:2,5,7,8,23 28:5,9,13,16 28:18,21,22 29:1,2,2,3,15 29:21 30:9,10 30:14,22 31:5
31:7 32:5,11 32:15,16,17,18 32:25,25 33:4 33:5,8,14,15 33:19,19,23,25 34:1,3,18,21 34:22,24 35:1 35:18,21,23 36:4,10,14,20 36:23 37:5,10 37:12,13 39:8 39:17,18 40:17 40:22 41:2,8,8 41:13,22 42:15 42:16,24,25 43:1,6,6,13,19 43:20 44:7,16 44:17,17,19,21 44:22,23,25 45:24 47:15,22 49:3,5,7,10,15 49:15,19 50:1 50:2,3,6 51:10 51:12,12,17,18 51:19,21,21,23 51:25 52:5,22 53:3,6,9,9,17 53:22,23 planned 51:9 plans 4:12,13,18 4:20 5:9 17:13 27:9 32:20 33:16 39:20 42:9,17 plan's 30:9 34:22 please 4:10 18:21 27:15 point 7:19 9:6 11:18 12:8 14:6 17:9 27:5 27:18 31:2 49:23 points 45:5 50:24 policy 12:9 35:5 pool 20:15 35:14
41:22 poorly 35:21 portability 36:20 portion 24:18 32:23,24 position 10:10 10:13 17:1,3 22:14 24:11 32:1,4,12,13 36:1,9 38:10 38:11,11,13 45:22 50:12 possibility 23:1 42:3 49:16 possible 8:8 26:10 41:16 45:14 possibly 20:24 pot 10:22 potential 34:7 precedes 34:11 precisely 37:6 38:19,19 50:17 preclude 42:3 predicate 13:15 present 21:7 40:19 50:10 presented 22:15 22:16 23:6,8 33:3 40:6,16 presume 48:22 prevail 40:21,23 41:7 prevent 25:15 27:8 principals 14:11 principle 47:1 prior 12:9 pro 53:6 Probably 36:19 problem 15:10 24:14 procedures 23:16 52:12 proceeding 40:16
process 30:4 prohibit 21:16 promised 38:24 promises 37:20 46:6 promising 39:2 proposal 4:20 4:23,25 5:5 6:5 6:8,12 33:2 48:21 51:3,7,8 proposed 5:19 33:2 48:15 51:3,11,16 protect 5:24 42:25 52:4 protected 36:4 37:15 48:5 provide 4:14 7:3 14:8 21:3 22:5 22:10 23:24 24:3 26:7 32:6 33:24 34:2,19 35:5 37:9 39:20 41:14 47:12 48:3 53:22,23 provided 6:13 9:16 12:1,18 14:4 16:8 50:1 provides 21:19 33:19 49:4 53:10 providing 14:9 21:22 35:19 47:21 provision 14:19 15:6,20 22:2 29:9 49:10 50:3 provisions 21:15 29:3 34:1 49:3 49:4,7 purchase 7:14 7:20 14:15 25:16 32:6 33:23 35:4 37:6
purchased 16:11 25:21 36:22 purchases 47:16 purchasing 7:23 14:6,23 31:7 purpose 39:24 put 5:20 19:16 25:13 35:25 41:1 50:12 puzzled 31:11 p.m 54:2 Q question 6:1 8:1 8:4,13,16,16 8:18,19,20 9:5 9:11,12,13 12:24 13:4,13 13:18 14:9 15:4,25 16:5 16:25,25 22:1 23:7 24:20,24 27:2 30:8,11 30:25 33:1,3 35:21 38:8 44:10 45:2,4 45:16 46:21 48:18 50:4,25 51:14 53:16 questioning 11:16 questions 9:11 9:14 12:16 14:2 23:6,8 quite 5:21 26:10 26:21 quoted 28:12 quotes 44:5 quoting 27:20 R R 4:1 raised 50:9 rata 53:6 reach 36:25 read 47:8 49:24 49:25
reading 49:17 really 16:9,12 16:13 26:17 33:2 43:11 reason 28:9 33:18 35:22 40:15,21 42:16 reasons 5:2 20:5 20:11,21 REBUTTAL 3:12 50:21 recapture 16:21 received 4:20 recognize 16:20 recognized 6:15 recognizing 51:11 record 42:2 51:5 recover 4:15 referred 27:17 29:12,14 referring 31:2 33:20 refund 23:25 reg 38:4 regs 46:9 regulations 23:15 32:10,13 34:2 rejected 4:22 relevant 16:22 27:25 28:6 45:9,11,11,12 45:13 relying 49:2,13 remaining 50:20 remains 25:6,20 30:15 44:8 remember 38:23 repeatedly 6:14 reply 10:11 representing 36:2 require 14:21 25:14,16,18 required 6:6
41:2 requirement 22:4 26:13 34:17 37:14 requirements 16:23 25:15 34:15 requires 6:3 23:17 33:8 37:12 reserve 18:13,14 24:12 25:10 resolution 6:10 resolve 23:8 28:2,10 resolving 23:6 respect 12:25 14:6 27:23 28:15 45:10,11 respecting 28:8 Respondents 2:2 3:11 27:13 response 11:11 11:15 responsibility 28:4 35:18 rest 34:25 47:14 result 18:5 resulted 6:8,10 retain 24:18 retire 37:20 return 51:1 Revenue 14:20 reverse 5:1 reversion 16:10 16:21 17:5 21:2 24:3 26:12 27:3,4,6 29:4 41:9,14 42:4 43:1 52:16,16,18,24 53:8,11,22 revisit 19:8 rid 44:20 right 13:8 15:13 24:21 33:6,22 34:8,16 37:19
39:21 41:2 42:25 45:4,8 46:10 53:4,5,7 rights 47:1 rigid 19:25 risk 34:7 road 32:21 Roberts 1:22 3:6 4:3 15:13,16 15:23 17:9 18:15,16,17,20 19:19 20:5 21:6 22:3,7,11 22:16 23:2 24:2,7,15 25:1 25:11 26:2,9 27:1,10 35:9 35:25 39:11,19 40:10,20 41:16 41:20 42:8,15 49:1,9,24 50:19 53:25 rock 38:20 47:12 48:9,11 roughly 9:20 rules 15:18 41:4 run 15:19 running 19:16
49:10 53:17 Scalia 10:9,18 10:25 11:2 13:10,12 16:1 16:3 28:19,23 29:6,10,22 30:2,8,19,24 33:6,10,12,17 34:16 35:3 37:8,11 39:25 40:3 47:7,24 52:23 53:4 Scalia's 48:12 sea 17:11 second 13:15 15:22 28:24 32:25 38:10,11 45:2 51:15 section 21:12 27:21 28:11,16 32:3,4,13 33:5 33:18 42:13 52:7,9,12 secure 35:19 48:3 security 6:22 39:9 45:20,25 46:12,14,24 47:5 48:15 S see 9:2,8 11:20 S 3:1 4:1 38:15 39:13 safe 47:9,16,24 40:14 43:23 48:3 47:14,20,23 safety 45:20,25 select 12:7 35:18 sake 45:5 selecting 7:7,8 satisfactory selection 7:2,13 50:8 14:19 satisfies 34:14 sense 22:24 saying 5:22 8:2 40:15 9:25 12:22 sent 51:7 36:3 39:13 separate 5:2 44:14 46:4,17 51:21 52:21 47:19 48:17,19 separated 32:24 49:2 separating says 6:20 32:2 29:17 33:11 38:5,18 sequence 25:10 38:21,24 46:7 26:7 44:1
series 5:5 serious 34:7 serve 19:17 service 14:21 37:1 set 5:13 sets 21:19 settlor 5:9 shaky 35:22 44:18 sick 8:24 44:16 side 39:25 sides 37:16 significance 43:15,18 significant 51:7 52:14 signing 51:9 silent 15:1,2,3 22:24 50:4 similar 34:5 52:18 53:7 simple 22:8 simpler 16:1 simplest 28:2,10 simply 22:1 29:20 31:2 42:17 43:6 48:19 51:25 52:19 single 6:7 9:2 20:12 29:14 32:11,21 36:19 47:1 situation 5:15 40:12 sole 39:10 Solicitor 1:22 solid 6:25 35:22 38:19 47:12 48:9,11 solidly 48:5 solution 49:4 solvent 47:18 somebody 9:1 10:21 sorry 31:24
sort 29:13 34:10 48:18 sound 44:16,17 sounds 12:22 Souter 7:18 8:13 8:15,19,22 9:10,17,24,25 10:14 11:15 14:5,12,18,22 15:2,7,15 18:13 21:25 22:6,8,14,23 24:10,20 25:9 25:25 26:4 44:12 48:17,24 48:25 53:9,17 53:24 south 34:22 specific 49:14 specifically 28:13,17 33:18 speculation 42:5 spinoff 25:18 32:16 sponsor 5:3,9 6:3,9,15,18,20 7:13,14,19 9:13 11:5 13:24 14:1 15:4,6 16:6,6 16:22 18:1 19:1,4,5,21 20:3,6,23 21:1 21:9 23:9 24:16 25:2,7 26:3 30:9,10 30:23 43:24 44:21,22,23 50:16 51:9,11 51:13,17,18,19 51:21,23,25 52:5,22 53:12 53:12 sponsors 27:7 sponsor's 19:7 29:24 30:5 spread 36:7
41:21 spun 32:17 square 48:18 stage 29:7 51:15 51:17,21 standard 52:8 stated 28:17 States 1:1,17,24 3:7 18:18 34:5 statute 11:10 23:15,16 27:20 34:5,15 38:23 52:11 statutory 50:25 step 29:6 30:18 Stevens 31:11 31:18,19,22,25 32:7 sticking 7:19 straightened 31:12 street 15:9 stripping 26:19 structure 19:2 20:10,22 23:11 34:10 subject 5:10 7:4 14:16 25:12 26:9,13 subjecting 44:23 submitted 54:1 54:3 subpart 28:2,6 28:10 subparts 27:24 substance 29:20 31:3 successor 20:19 23:20,21 suddenly 30:20 sufficient 50:7 sufficiently 4:24 suggesting 10:15 31:14,14 suggests 50:5 suited 14:10 sum 49:23
terminated 10:2 supply 5:17 supporting 1:25 29:3,16 3:8 18:19 terminating suppose 19:10 4:13 9:18 13:5 37:18,21 38:17 13:8 15:21 43:3 18:23 19:20 Supreme 1:1,17 23:17 25:4 sure 26:21,23 33:5 42:25 30:2,3 46:20 termination 48:8 52:23 5:19 9:9,11 53:15 10:3,4,6,12,17 surplus 4:16 10:19,19 12:2 21:2 24:22 12:20 13:16,23 53:6 14:13 15:24 16:23 20:1,25 T 21:1,9,21,24 T 3:1,1 23:12,14,16,24 table 30:11 25:15,19 28:15 35:19 44:6 28:22 29:8,19 45:18 50:13 29:23 30:15,18 take 14:22 15:19 30:22 31:16,20 24:5,11,23 32:1,3,8 33:7 27:4 29:4 33:20 39:21 32:11 39:1 41:13 43:21 45:22 46:2 44:5,7 52:8,15 47:3 52:15,19 53:7 taken 13:23 terminations 34:11 42:7 52:10 takes 31:25 terms 22:18,21 talking 18:2 26:5 37:2 44:5 39:19,20 46:12 tax 21:16 46:14 47:5 tease 30:16 49:19 51:23 telling 26:8 52:6 53:14,21 tells 34:13 Thank 4:9 18:15 term 49:18 27:10 50:18,19 terminate 4:12 50:23 53:25 4:19 5:8 6:2,21 thing 38:6 7:15,22 8:6,17 things 29:18 9:4 11:18,19 think 7:18,20 11:23 12:23,24 8:2 11:17 15:17 16:20 12:25 21:7 18:25 19:3,7 22:3 23:2,3,6,7 19:22 20:24 23:9,13 26:8 24:22 25:6 28:2 35:1 36:5 30:5,9,12 31:4 45:3 46:19 31:13 51:20 47:7,10,13,16
47:22 48:23 third 13:4,13 38:13 thought 8:16 10:9 15:16 35:9 38:9 46:16 thousand 37:21 three 9:20 27:24 50:20 threshold 6:4 7:15,16,17 8:13,16,16 9:14 12:16 14:2 15:24 16:5 throwing 15:9 35:13 thrown 10:22 17:11 36:6 time 4:15 18:13 18:14 32:14 44:13 50:18 times 41:5,6 timing 44:1,3 told 45:10 top 15:8 33:22 47:9 transaction 29:1 30:13 31:9 32:23 37:16 51:16,17 52:21 transactions 29:13 52:21 transfer 24:17 25:3,18 26:11 29:7,18 30:21 30:22 32:14,16 34:17 37:12,15 51:19 transferee 25:20 34:18 transferred 23:20 25:23 29:2 30:14 32:25 34:25 35:8 51:5
transferring 28:21 31:6 transform 30:21 treat 23:15 treated 29:14 32:16 trial 51:6 triggered 15:18 trouble 8:3 45:3 true 14:6 truly 43:19 trust 5:10 TRUSTEE 1:4 try 5:23 trying 17:16 37:17 38:4 46:20 Tuesday 1:14 tune 40:22 turn 43:6 50:24 50:25 51:14 two 5:2 7:21,22 8:5,10,11,12 9:10,19 11:3 16:17 19:5 20:5 24:24 27:24 29:18 30:20 32:20 38:17 42:2 43:8 45:10,12 45:17 46:11 52:11,12,20,21 twofold 50:12 two-part 29:13 two-stage 28:25 51:16 52:20 two-step 30:4,13 51:3
union 1:10 4:5 4:21 17:14,20 35:14 36:2,11 41:17 42:10,12 42:15 51:5 United 1:1,17,24 3:7 18:18 34:5 uppermost 11:21 urging 40:8 usage 32:22 use 24:24 usual 49:17 usually 14:8 40:11 U.S 28:11 U.S.C 27:21 32:4 V v 1:9 vacated 23:4 Vantage 1:6 4:11 various 15:18 vast 17:11 versus 4:4 31:7 vesting 12:4,19 21:16 violate 49:18 violation 42:13 vs 34:4
W waived 22:7,17 40:1,4 waiver 40:11 want 26:5 37:4 44:20 48:19 wants 24:13 U 43:5 ultimately 36:11 Washington understand 5:12 1:13,20,23 2:1 9:3 38:4 39:13 wasn't 45:11 46:19,21 48:8 way 5:24 12:10 50:11 52:23 21:18 22:13 53:15 28:2,10 35:4 undertake 34:18 37:6 38:15,16
42:24 47:8 48:3 49:25 ways 15:21 21:22 47:20 wearing 6:19,20 36:14 wears 43:7 week 34:4 we'll 4:3 5:20 26:22 37:20 38:21,22 46:8 we're 5:22,23 6:20 8:6,22,24 9:1 11:13 18:2 35:17 38:17,19 we've 8:6,17 16:2 22:23 42:10 willing 47:12 wonder 45:9 words 21:18 34:21 52:11 53:20 work 26:22 37:18 worker 45:6,7 45:14 46:6 working 36:21 works 21:18 45:8 world 47:14 worry 11:10 44:16 wouldn't 25:7 wrestling 16:2 write 38:22 46:15 wrong 13:8,11 13:24 15:21 32:9 X x 1:2,12 37:19 Y years 37:1 Z
zero 9:18 $ $1,000 46:7 $5 4:15 16:10 17:10 24:22 36:7 40:23 41:18 42:21 48:22 $500 38:22 46:8 46:16 0 05-1448 1:9 4:4 1 1 28:6 100 4:14 1002(21)(A) 27:21 1058 52:12 11:02 1:18 4:2 12 4:12 12:03 54:2 1334 53:1 1341 28:11 32:4 33:5,18 47:8 52:7 1341(b)(3)(A) 21:12 1412 52:9 18 3:8 1984 25:13 2 2a 47:9 2007 1:14 24 1:14 25 37:1 51:6 27 3:11 29 27:21 28:11 32:4 3 3 28:2 4 4 3:4
414(1) 32:13
5 39:12 50 3:14