Opinion ID: 172426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Was the Pensioner Death Benefit Contractually Vested?

Text: Plaintiffs next contend, in challenging the district court's grant of summary judgment, that even if Amendment 2003-5 did not violate ERISA's anti-cutback rule, it violated the terms of the Plan's reservation of rights clause, which they contend effectively served as a private anti-cutback clause. Aplt. Br. at 4. In support of this contention, plaintiffs note that the reservation of rights clause prohibited any amendments to the Plan that served to `diminish the accrued benefit (as defined in Section 411(d)(6) of the Code) of any Participant as of the effective date of such amendment,' Id. at 34-35 (quoting App. at 607), and they argue that the DLS Equivalent was an accrued benefit that was not only diminished, but indeed eliminated, by Amendment 2003-5. We readily reject plaintiffs' arguments. As the above-quoted language from the Plan indicates, the phrase accrued benefit, as employed in the Plan's reservation of rights clause, carries the same meaning as in Section 411(d)(6) of the [Internal Revenue] Code. Section 411(d)(6) of the IRC, 26 U.S.C. § 411(d)(6), is the IRC's duplicate version of ERISA's anti-cutback rule. See Cent. Laborers' Pension Fund, 541 U.S. at 746, 124 S.Ct. 2230 (noting that ERISA and the IRC have a curious duplicate structure with regard to their provisions regarding employee pension plans) (internal quotations omitted). And, as discussed in substantial detail above, it is clear that neither the Pensioner Death Benefit, nor its DLS Equivalent component, qualify as accrued benefits under ERISA and the relevant Treasury regulations. Thus, for those same reasons, the DLS Equivalent cannot qualify as an accrued benefit under the Plan's reservation of rights clause. Plaintiffs also make passing references that could perhaps be generously construed as asserting that the Pensioner Death Benefit and/or the DLS Equivalent were welfare benefits that were contractually vested for other reasons and thus protected from being reduced or eliminated. E.g., Aplt. Br. at 37 (Even if the PDB is a welfare benefit, it was inseparably tied to the formula for the protected early retirement benefit.), 38-39 ([S]ince the single sum benefit with the DLS Equivalent of the Death Benefit is a protected benefit which causes the PDB to be a protected benefit, due to the IRC Section 420 transfers there should be a declaration identifying Plan participants for whom the benefits are fully vested.). Notably, however, plaintiffs fail to flesh out these arguments sufficiently to create genuine issues for purposes of appeal. Moreover, the district court rejected the notion that the Pensioner Death Benefit had contractually vested, and plaintiffs have made no attempt to challenge any of the particular bases for the district court's conclusion in that regard.