Opinion ID: 430879
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Contractual Guarantees Arising From the Purchase and Sale Agreement

Text: 38 Appellants contend that the district court erred in finding they have no contractual rights under the purchase and sale agreement. Appellants argue that they are third party beneficiaries of the agreement, and that both companies guaranteed in article 7(b) that the benefits under the Georgia-Pacific Pension Plan would be equal to or better than those under the Brown Pension Plan. 39 Assuming, but not holding, that appellants are third party beneficiaries, 15 we agree with the district court that article 7(b) of the agreement provides no support for an express or implied promise by either Brown or [Georgia-Pacific] to guarantee [appellants'] pension funds. J.A. at 916. Articles 7(b)(i) and (ii) require Georgia-Pacific to bargain collectively with appellants on the subject of pensions, and to establish as a goal pension benefits for appellants comparable to those appellants would have received under the Brown Pension Plan. Supra note 1. Setting a goal of achieving comparable benefits in collective bargaining does not constitute a binding promise that such benefits will be achieved. 16 Moreover, and more importantly, Georgia-Pacific fully complied with articles 7(b)(i) and (ii) when it entered into a collective bargaining agreement that provided pension benefits that were at least comparable to those provided by Brown. 17 40 Similarly, we find no basis for a contractual claim based on article 7(b)(iii) of the agreement. Under that provision, Brown agreed to transfer to Georgia-Pacific appellants' pro rata share of money in the Brown Pension Plan, and Georgia-Pacific agreed to apply this money to appellants' new pension plan. Supra note 1. Both companies fully complied with this provision. Moreover, any claim that Brown transferred an inadequate amount of money to Georgia-Pacific has been fully adjudicated. See supra note 13. Accordingly, appellants may not now assert contractual rights under article 7(b) of the agreement. 18 III. CONCLUSION 41 For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court's judgments for PBGC, Brown, and Georgia-Pacific. 42 Affirmed.