Opinion ID: 596119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 61 The plaintiffs have articulated two related theories of liability under ERISA. First, they argue that by unilaterally amending the Plan documents and later distributing the excess funds to itself, both in contravention of the terms of the Plan documents, Murata violated its fiduciary duty to act in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan.... ERISA § 404(a)(1)(D), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D) (1988). Second, the plaintiffs contend that because the Plan documents lacked a provision allowing for reversion of the excess assets in the Plans to the employer, Murata contravened ERISA § 4044(d)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1344(d)(1) (1988), which provides that any residual assets of a single-employer plan may be distributed to the employer if ... the plan provides for such a distribution. (emphasis added). 62 The district court found the October 25, 1985 amendment to the Plan documents invalid because the amendment was adopted in contravention of two provisions governing the relationship of the parties: section 57 of the 1984 collective bargaining agreement and section 14.02 of the Plan documents. The court found that the language in section 57 of the collective bargaining agreement stating that neither the Company nor the Union shall demand any change in the Pension and Welfare Plan unambiguously prohibited Murata from unilaterally adopting any changes in the Plan documents. Further, the court found that section 14.02's command that n[o] ... amendment shall vest in the Company any right, title, or interest in or to the funds held by the Trustee also prohibited the 1985 amendment. Having invalidated the 1985 amendment, the court concluded that there was no other provision in the Plan documents that allowed for reversion of excess funds to Murata. Therefore, the court held that Murata's September 5, 1989 recoupment of the excess funds violated ERISA §§ 404(a)(1)(D) & 4044(d)(1), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1104(a)(1)(D) & 1344(d)(1). 11 63 We must first determine whether section 57 of the collective bargaining agreement or section 14.02 unambiguously prohibited Murata's 1985 amendment to the Plan documents. 64