Document: 127 S. Ct. 2310 (2007) Jeffrey BECK, liquidating trustee of the Estates Crown Vantage, Inc. and Paper Company, Petitioner, v. PACE INTERNATIONAL UNION et al. No. 05-1448. Supreme Court United States. Argued April 24, 2007. Decided June 11, *2313 M. Miller Baker, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Matthew D. Roberts, States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting Julia P. Clark, respondents. *2314 Rory K. Little, San Francisco, CA, Wilber H. Boies, Michael T. Graham, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Chicago, IL, David E. Rogers, Counsel Record, Nadel, W. Mikoni, Petitioner Beck. Christian L. Raisner, Weinberg, Roger Rosenfeld, Alameda, Penny Laurence Gold, Douglas Greenfield, Leon Dayan, Kathleen Keller, Bredhoff Kaiser, PLLC, Respondents. Justice SCALIA delivered opinion Court. We decide in this case whether an employer that sponsors administers a single-employer defined-benefit pension plan has fiduciary obligation under Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 seq., to consider merger with multiemployer method terminating plan. I its parent entity, Vantage (the two hereinafter referred singular Crown), employed 2,600 persons seven paper mills. International Union, respondent here, represented employees covered 17 Crown's plans. A plan, "as name implies, is one where employee, upon retirement, entitled fixed periodic payment." Commissioner Keystone Consol. Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 152, 154, 113 2006, 124 Ed. 2d 71 (1993). In such generally shoulders investment risk. It who must make up any deficits, but also enjoys fruits (whether form lower contributions or sometimes reversion assets) if investments perform beyond expectations. See Hughes Aircraft Co. Jacobson, 525 432, 439-440, 119 755, 142 881 (1999). case, served both sponsor administrator. March 2000, filed bankruptcy proceeded liquidate assets. ERISA allows employers terminate their plans voluntarily, see Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation LTV Corp., 496 633, 638, 110 2668, 579 (1990), summer 2001, began "standard termination," condition which terminated have sufficient assets cover benefit liabilities. 1341(b)(1)(D); id., at 638-639, 2668. focused particular on possibility standard termination through purchase annuities, statutorily specified termination. 1341(b)(3)(A)(i). PACE, however, had ideas own. interjected itself into discussions proposed that, rather than buy instead merge covering union members Industrial Union Management Fund (PIUMPF), "Taft-Hartley" 1002(37). Under terms PACE-proposed agreement, would be required convey all PIUMPF; PIUMPF assume took PACE's offer advisement. As it reviewed annuitization bids, discovered overfunded certain plans, so *2315 purchasing annuities allow retain projected $5 million creditors after satisfying obligations participants beneficiaries. 1344(d)(1) (providing conditions are met). proposal, contrast, go PIUMPF. What more, (PBGC), insurance program protect benefits, agreed withdraw proofs claim against proceedings went ahead annuity purchase. evidently heard enough. consolidated 12 plans[1] single $84 annuity. That fully satisfied beneficiaries allowed reap surplus funds. participants, respondents here (we will refer collectively PACE), thereafter adversary action Bankruptcy alleging directors breached duties neglecting give diligent consideration proposal. The sided PACE. found decision was decision, giving insufficient study Rather ordering cancel (which resulted substantial penalty payable provider), issued preliminary injunction preventing from obtaining reversion. subsequently approved distribution beneficiaries, stayed pending appeal.[2] estates, appealed Bankruptcy-Court District affirmed relevant part, did Appeals Ninth Circuit. Circuit acknowledged "the business not subject ERISA's obligations," reasoned implementation terminate" nature. 427 F.3d 668, 673 (2005). then determined permissible means therefore proposal seriously, failed do. sought rehearing Appeals, time support PBGC Department Labor, petitioner Circuit's judgment error. held original we granted certiorari. 549 ___, 1144, 166 909 (2007). *2316 II operation placed dual roles administrator; employer's implicated only when acts latter capacity. Which hat proverbially wearing depends nature function performed, Co., supra, 444, inquiry aided common law trusts serves backdrop, Pegram Herdrich, 530 211, 224, 120 2143, 147 164 (2000); Lockheed Corp. Spink, 517 882, 890, 116 1783, 135 153 (1996). well established Court's cases settlor immune obligations. See, e.g., ibid.; Curtiss-Wright Schoonejongen, 514 73, 78, 115 1223, 131 94 (1995). And because "decision[s] regarding structure" functions, U.S., acknowledges "normally [a] decisio[n]" well. Brief Respondents 13, n. 5, 20-21; Malia General Electric 23 828, 833 (C.A.3 1994) (holding "d[id] invoke duty provisions ERISA"). But says different, just imposed selection appropriate provider CFR §§ 2509.95-1, 4041.28(c)(3) (2006), too, argues, require merger. idea could switch depending context raised odd one. once realized simply transfer liabilities, argument becomes somewhat more plausible: akin liabilities (to company), selecting provider, why automatically disregard happened insurer? There is, antecedent question. order affirm below, conclude (as did) first place, ERISA. requires us delve statute's sets forth exclusive procedures 1341(a)(1); 446. Those exhaustive, setting detailed rules for, inter alia, notice affected parties, 1341(a)(2), review PBGC, 1341(b)(2)(A), (C), final funds, 1341(b)(2)(D), 1344. Veal Mackiewicz, Plan Terminations 43-61 (2d ed.1998) (hereinafter Mackiewicz). At issue 1341(b)(3)(A), provision methods distributing Section 1341(b)(3)(A) provides follows: "In connection pursuant subsection, administrator shall distribute *2317 accordance section 1344 title. assets, shall "(i) irrevocable commitments insurer provide "(ii) applicable regulations, otherwise plan...." PBGC's regulations impose substance same requirements. 4041.28(c)(1). Title 1344, specific priority asset distribution, including (under circumstances) reversions excess funds sponsor, 1344(d)(1). parties agree 1341(b)(3)(A)(i) refers 4001.2 (defining "irrevocable commitment"), 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii) lump-sum distributions present discounted value (including rollovers individual retirement accounts). concedes, contracts payments "by far most methods." 45; Mackiewicz 72-73 ("The basic alternatives some cashout"). To Circuit, well.[3] do over objection (joined Labor) disagrees taking position does permit (in view) alternative (rather example of) Amicus Curiae 8, 17-30. traditionally deferred interpreting ERISA, "to attempt answer these questions without views agencies responsible enforcing embar[k] voyage compass." Mead Tilley, 490 714, 722, 725-726, 109 2156, 104 796 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); 648, 651, reviewing thus examine "whether policy based construction statute." Id., 2668.[4] *2318 believe is. "failed persuade unreasonable," 725. outset, statute, general residual clause 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii), potentially embracing (whatever they may be) longstanding practice, appears almost exclusively payments. think statutory text need read include mergers, indeed offers better reading excluding them. Most obviously, Congress nowhere expressly provided Merger mentioned much less 1341's many subsections. Indeed, entirely separate set sections (of moment, infra, 2319-2321). nevertheless maintains clearly 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii)'s clause, "otherwise provide[s] plan." By reasoning, 1341(b)(3)(A)(i); areby virtue word "otherwise"an "fully plan," 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii); therefore, "at least," "legal equivalent" permitted, 23. Merger, legal equivalent. find statute clear. Even assuming right about "otherwise"that indicates 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii)we still mergers clarity necessary considered views. Surely phrase plan" teeth. reasonable determine like ability distinct treatment clear evidence other. Three points strike especially persuasive regards. First, (like payments) formally severs applicability Upon no longer multitudinous requirements, one) payment premiums 1307(a). likewise liable deficiency event insolvent; there benefits guarantee. wholly removed system, rely primarily (if exclusively) state-contract remedies receive proper denied access Further, standpoint risk associated relates solely *2319 solvency company, performance merged plan's investments. fundamentally different: represents continuation cessation regime. If were PIUMPF, been combined used satisfy other those remain within purview, maintain responsibility them, continued employ too Finally, recourse law, prior Second, recoup 1344(d)(1), (3), here. forbids obtain absence termination: "A valid prerequisite employer." App. Opposition 15a (PBGC Opinion Letter 85-25 (Oct. 1985)); 164-165. extract nor done transferred This run anti-inurement provision, prohibits misappropriating own benefit. 1103(c). Consequently, declining recognize mechanism preclude receipt specifically authorized termination.[5] Third, structure amply conclusively) supports conclusion noted above, 1341, dealt different procedures. Compare 1058 (general provision), 1411 (mergers between plans), 1412 plans) 1341 (termination 1341a plans); 31-40 (describing termination). 1058, fact quite contemplates same, forbidding "unless each participant terminated) immediately ... equal greater he before *2320 terminated)." (Emphasis added.) governing merger: critically, seeking advance extensive actuarial information. 1341(b)(2)(A). authority halt determines 1341(b)(2)(C). involves considerably oversight, similar cancel, 24. either nonexistent. 1412, contemplated proposal) makes mention early PBGC. while 120-days notice, 1411(b)(1), differs "[a]s soon practicable" given Relatedly, 1341(a)(2) termination, written "any related additional information [PBGC]." require, among things, inform guarantees... benefits." 4041.23(b)(9). (This requirement course relevance merger, continues guarantee benefits.) believes procedural differences can ironed easily. insists: "Many take place intent plan; cases, requirements followed consulting Conversely, terminations merger; consult mergers. intends use implementing follow termination." 36. similarly explains approve "ordinary merger[s]," approval designed 37. confusion invited framework alone enough condemn it. How sure box other? avoid liability, should time? flawed another reason well: apparent basis statute. treat transactions, exception For foregoing reasons, one, plausible. breach failing standpoint, choice eminently since detrimental consequences alike. When *2321 become dependent financial well-being contributing members. Assets capable funding liabilities) owed (possibly underfunded) arrangement creates added particularly view lesser guarantees compare 1322 1322a. 29, 11. employers, ill effects demonstrated facts very case: diligently became bait bent rightfully Crown's. All purchased none dispute * hold reversed, remanded further consistent opinion. ordered. NOTES [1] various case. [2] now suggests willing kept 17, 7. belied actively obtained freezing having rejected request undo contract, pursuing litigation remained commitments. Moreover, "speculation." Tr. Oral Arg. 42. [3] question interpretation disallowed Any permitted "in drafted documents limit available permitted. argued below that. Though concluded Pet. Cert. 47, declined language preserve seek certiorari factbound issues waiver interpretation, accordingly address them [4] argues inconsistent approach several letters 1980's concerning joint guidelines during complex transactions. 6a-9a (Opinion 85-11 (May 14, 10a-13a 85-21 (Aug. 26, 14a-16a 1985)). insofar consistency even accord deference presently views, hints treated fact, extent speak question, show opposite. 85-25, example, explained apply "a [of liabilities] ongoing (emphasis added). characterizing transaction steps (merger termination), letter [5] inability recover remedied, suggests, structuring (effectively creating spinoff merging PIUMPF). arrangement, reversionnot, merger-called-termination, subsequent 1985)) sequence transactions). falls short rendering permitting recovery occur anticipation future render

Category: 7