Document: 513 U.S. 414115 S.Ct. 981130 L.Ed.2d 932 MILWAUKEE BREWERY WORKERS' PENSION PLAN, Petitionerv.JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING COMPANY and Stroh Brewery Company et al. No. 93-768. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 5, 1994. Decided Feb. 21, 1995. Syllabus * The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act 1980 (MPPAA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1461, permits an employer withdrawing from underfunded multiemployer pension plan to "amortize" charge it is required pay cover its fair share plan's unfunded liabilities by making installment payments plan. Following August 14, 1981, withdrawal respondent Schlitz petitioner (the Plan), a dispute arose as when, for purposes calculating Schlitz's amortization schedule, interest began accrue on company's charge. claimed that accrual last day year preceding withdrawal, December 31, 1980, "valuation date" which was determined. Schlitz, however, argued January 1, 1982, first following withdrawal. Under Plan's reading, annual would be substantially greater than under own reading. District disagreed with but Appeals reversed. Held: MPPAA calculates schedule assumption begins accruing Pp. 7-17. (a) For computation purposes, § 1399(c)(1)(A)(i)—which parties agree) governs this case authorizes "to amortize [withdrawal] amount in . ., calculated if payment were made occurs each subsequent year"—causes over years, not during itself. Although statute does mention directly, word assumes charges. However, indicate accrues year. One generally debt kind here at issue until arises—i.e., principal outstanding. statute, employer's arise end Rather, 1399(c)(1)(A)(i)'s instruction calculate "first payment" day" demonstrates must treated time. contrary reading cannot easily reconciled statutory provisions permitting owed lump sum thereby avoid paying interest, 1399(c)(4), defining basic liability without reference year, 1381(b)(1), 1391. 8-11. (b) several arguments amici—(1) allowing works against statute's objective requiring underfunding; (2) language actually favors before withdrawal; (3) legislative history Congress expressly rejected idea "funding gap" between valuation date beginning withdrawal—are persuasive. 11-17. 3 F.3d 994 (CA 7 1993), affirmed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Michael G. Bruton, Chicago, IL, petitioner. Richard K. Willard, Washington, DC, respondents. Justice BREYER 1 94 Stat. 1208, provides who withdraws sufficient liabilities. or it, This focuses upon amortizes charge, asks amortized Seventh Circuit held that, computation, after We agree affirm judgment. 2 shall briefly describe general purpose MPPAA, way works, relevant interest-related facts us. A. MPPAA's General Purpose helps solve problem became apparent enacted Employee Retirement Income Security 1974 (ERISA), 88 829, 1001 seq. ERISA helped assure private-sector workers they receive pensions their employers had promised them. See, e.g., Concrete Pipe & Products Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Trust So. 508 ----, ---- - 113 2264, 2271, 124 539 (1993). To do so, among other things, make contributions produce pension-plan assets meet future vested liabilities; mandated termination insurance protect bankruptcy; and, insolvent, any withdrawn previous five years liable underfunding. See 26 412 (minimum funding standards); 1082 (same); 1301 (termination insurance); 1364 (withdrawal liability). 4 Unfortunately, scheme encouraged withdraw financially shaky risk later rather remain (if others withdrew) having bear alone entire cost keeping afloat. Consequently, financial troubles could trigger stampede exit-doors, ensuring demise. Connolly Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 211, 216, 106 1018, 1021-1022, 89 166 (1986); Corporation R.A. Gray Co., 467 717, 722-723, n. 2, 104 2709, 2714, 81 601 (1984); see also 1001a(a)(4); H.R.Rep. 96-869, pt. pp. 54-55 (1980); D. McGill Grubbs, Fundamentals Private Pensions 618-619 (6th ed. 1989). eliminate changing strategic considerations. It transformed what only (that have underfunding) into certainty. That say, imposed all (whether insolvent). And, set forth detailed rules determining, collecting, B Basic Approach 5 related answers three more general, important, questions: First, how much charge? lengthy charge-determination section, 1391, sets explains determine total (based primarily comparative number covered earlier level contributions). 6 might expect 1391 equals underfunding withdraws. But, instead, instructs calculation, withdrew—a up earlier. 1391(b)(2)(A)(ii), (b)(2)(E)(i), (c)(2)(C)(i), (c)(3)(A), (c)(4)(A). Thus (assuming illustrative bookkeeping calendar coincide), 1981 whether withdrew next (January 1981) (December 1981). reason calculation seems one administrative convenience. Its use base highly complex calculations figures prepare event report ERISA, 1082(c)(9), avoiding need generate new tied actual Second, may two methods: sum; installments. lump-sum method relatively simple. A when falls due; installments while then discharge remaining liability; partial balloon afterwards 1399(c)(4). complex. unusual ask question mortgage borrower normally ask, namely, my monthly payments? What size will amortize, 7% 30-year loan $100,000? fixes many such there be. put matter precisely, (1) (roughly speaking) typical contribution years; rate, equal rate uses calculations; take rate. 1399(c)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(1)(C). 8 Brown, owes Smith $1000, not, "How I month off (with interest) years?"—but, rather, "Assuming $100 debt?" bring closer those case, assume mid-1981; (calculated 1980) $23.3 million; contributes about $4 million per plan; In asks: 7%?" fact poses installment-plan way, along additional feature namely forgives outstanding 20 1399(c)(1)(B), suggests maintaining important goal statute. practical effect concern 1399(c)(1)(A)(i) cause added (unless forgiven 1399(c)(1)(B)). 9 Third, pay? (or begin sum) (It i.e., 1981.) course, payment) so. says draw "demand "soon practicable" 1399(b)(1). adds "[w]ithdrawal payable no 60 days demand." 1399(c)(2). 10 Thus, quickly demand "payable" within thereafter. slowly able months example, incurring 1980), million, roughly become "no days" sent letter. thus come soon 15, thereafter, depending speed. C Case 11 approximate our example. Three brewers, Pabst, Miller, contributed Plan). On Plan. App. 151-152. By September completed calculations, created out (thereby "payable") "on November 1981." 153, 154. From outset, agreed amounted $3,945,481, After various controversies led arbitration court proceeding Plan, courts eventually determined plan-bookkeeping million. 12 accrued withdrew. started 1980). hand, 1982). either eight. final $3,499,361, whereas, $880,331. 13 arbitrator EBC 2385, 2405 (1988). Court, reviewing award, disagreed, 88-C-908 (ED Wis., June 6, 1991) (reprinted 25, 62-69), reversed Because Circuit's decision conflicts holding Third Circuit, Huber Casablanca Industries, Inc., 916 F.2d 85, 95-100 (1990), cert. dism'd, 506 1070, 122 497 (1993), granted certiorari, 512 2736, 129 858 (1994). Our conclusion, like start II 14 At glance, provision silent withdrawal-year interest. Indeed, directly all. 15 "shall section period necessary subparagraph (C), year." (emphasis added). 16 considering parties' arguments, focus emphasized language, we convinced provision, although causing 17 points out, agree, all, very amortizing, loan, involves time But (supported Government, taking view took F.2d, 96) goes claim indicates well years. claim. view, arises—that tells us treat (i.e., withdrawal), 18 thing, unless involved, expects debtor arises, cycle later. Suppose, taxpayer arranges large tax four quarterly Would April becomes due? Similarly, buyer of, business (a down closing? contrast, involved (say, borrows money home repays installments), payment. because has seem pointless, simply unnecessary back-and-forth transfer money, repayment place lender disburses proceeds. 19 here, looks purchase-money installment. fact, instead continued ordinary event, makes clear nothing demands payment, inevitably happen some 1399(b)(1), (c)(2). determine, pay, amount—which All these features difficult find analogy loan. another reconcile sum. entitled prepay unpaid [§ 1399(c)(1)(C) ], plus any, whole part, penalty." 21 read permit employer, sum, otherwise accrue. (Under prepayment create "entitle[ment]." Moreover, refers "payments 1399(c)(1)(C ) ]"—not 1399(c)(1)(A ), causes accrue.) odd enabled except hardly ever due. Such give meaning words "if any" phrase "plus any." (The suggested refer immediately scheduled Huber, 99. could, theoretically. realistically speaking, unlikely inserted deal event.) 22 Further, interpretation defines liability. Section 1381(a) "liable part liability." 1381(a). 1381(b)(1) "withdrawal liability" "the 1391." Yet, year's worth Why so always creates irrespective employee 23 Finally, made, " date. choice day) signal occurred cycle. 24 (and supporting amici support which, starts are persuaded. 25 argues interpretation, fail what, share. needed exactly $20 grow just benefits falling due, 1999. same money; indeed, grown 1999 benefits. $3 $3,210,000 1981. Why, should missing $210,000? answer $210,000 necessarily missing. withdraws, contain component designed reduce 412(b)(2); 1082. moves quickly, force even Either full overcharge provide underfunding-reduction windfall. 27 Another aims actuarially perfect share, amounts invested, theoretically (on actuarial assumptions) precisely proportional of) estimated de minimis amounts. 1389. 1399(c)(1)(B)—and means normal low compared presence absence (which shows supra, 5) difference (for never made). contemplates sometimes long year—as (21/2-year delay)—in can something less 28 interpretation. dictionary 'one where principal, stated periods definite time, expiration indebtedness extinguished,' Brief Petitioner (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 76 (5th 1979)) added), definition '[i]f being repaid method, partially pa yment interest,' S. Kellison, Theory Interest 169 (2d 1991)) These definitions accurately loans. include believe intend define away here. "as if" clause superfluous because, intended provided presumed annually." 38. premise argument indication, issue, due 8-9. More importantly, used occurs," reader thought intuitive appeal, F.3d, 1004 ("[a]n assessment troubling"). explain second concerning payments. Without clause, think order, successive anniversary withdrawal.) 30 recognize been specific. said: "calculate due" (had date); or: due). Instead, said occurs." said, offers alternative. Were analogize withdrawal) arises; "payable"; none things; chosen ease administration; administration require choosing interest-accrual purposes. ("[e]stablishing simple rule shortfalls interest"). 31 history. original bill version ultimately law, located determined) says, contemplated gap"—from providing did enacted, argues, "gap." 41. 32 reasons above, 12-13, doubt matter, significant gap occur. regardless, consider undermines supports rendering incomplete, went through versions: 33 bill, calling 34 1076, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., (1979) 35 (adding 4201(d)(1)(A), (e)(5)), reprinted 125 Cong.Rec. 9800, 9803 (1979); H.R. 3904, Hearings 1979 Task Force Welfare Plans Subcommittee Labor-Management Relations House Committee Education Labor, 3, (hereinafter Hearings); 36 version, moved (thus apparently indicating fell due), 37 38 4201(e)(2)(E), (f)(2)(C), (f)(3)(A), (f)(4)(A), (i)(2)(A)(ii)), 246-247, 249, 251, 252, 256; 39 third kept changed clauses found now know 40 (1980) 41 4201(e)(2)(E)(i), (f)(2)(C)(i), (i)(2)(A)(i)), 12-15 4202(c)(1)(A)(i)), 129-131, 135-136 42 (4) back retained version's 43 44 4211(b)(2)(E)(i), 45 (c)(2)(C)(i)(I), (c)(4)(A)(i), 46 4219(c)(1)(A)(i)), 126 47 23,003, 23,014, 23,016 (1980). 48 neither throughout bill's history, uncoordinated way. somewhat suggestion concerned interplay two. certainly dispels notion viewed rejection bill. evolution due," [following withdrawal]" replaced III 49 consequently hold judgment therefore 50 Affirmed. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, L.Ed. 499.

Category: 7