Opinion ID: 609747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ERISA Applies to the Pension Plans.

Text: 14 Adrienne first asserts that summary judgment was improper because there are genuine issues of material fact over whether these plans are covered by title I of ERISA, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, which contains the REA. Title I imposes obligations on pension-plan fiduciaries and applies only to those plans that are maintained by any employer engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a)(1). Plans maintained outside of the United States primarily for the benefit of persons substantially all of whom are nonresident aliens are exempt from coverage. 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(4). Adrienne argues that because Hong Kong corporations established these plans, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plans are affected by ERISA. 15 The district court correctly noted that since Nicholas was an American citizen the plans did not qualify for the § 1003(b)(4) exemption. While the district court did not address the interstate commerce issue, our review of the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the corporations were engaged in commerce. There is evidence, including letters from the corporations' directors, that refers to the corporate business as providing inspection services in connection with the supply of artificial flowers and flower arrangements to the USA. While Arcadia and Bay Novelty do not conduct their business in the United States, this does not determine whether the corporations affect United States commerce. Clearly they do, because their principal markets are in this country. Adrienne fails to raise any genuine issue as to this element. 16