Opinion ID: 792485
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interest and Double Interest

Text: 66 Svec is required to pay interest and double interest on the delinquent contributions. See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1132(g)(2)(B), (C). Svec's arguments against payment rely upon a strained statutory interpretation based on Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 454, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989). In Public Citizen, the Supreme Court found that words of general meaning sometimes do not represent the legislature's true intent. Id. Svec, however, presents no evidence that the legislature did not mean what it said when it mandated interest and double interest on unpaid contributions. 67 Svec also claims that he should not be forced to pay the interest costs because Moriarty prolonged this litigation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Moriarty did not prolong this litigation. 68 While attorneys' fees and costs must be reasonable, there is no such qualifier placed upon the award of interest and double interest. See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1132(g)(2). The reasonable requirement in the context of fees and costs creates a latitude for the district court that does not exist in the awarding of interest. The statutory language has clear implications in this case. In an action involving delinquent contributions . . . the court shall award the plan . . . interest on the unpaid contributions, [and] an amount equal to the greater of interest on the unpaid contributions, or liquidated damages[.] 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1132(g)(2)(B), (C). 69 We affirm the judgment of the district court requiring Svec to pay Moriarty interest and double interest totaling $51,628.10 on the unpaid contributions.