Legal Document

522 U.S. 192118 S.Ct. 542139 L.Ed.2d 553 BAY AREA LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING PENSION TRUST FUND, Petitioner,v.FERBAR CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC., and Stephen Barnes. No. 96-370. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 10, 1997. Decided Dec. 15, Syllabus * Under Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act 1980 (MPPAA or Act), employers who withdraw from underfunded multiemployer pension plans must ordinarily pay "withdrawal liability.'' 29 U.S.C. §1381(a). The MPPAA allows to discharge that obligation by making a series periodic payments. §1399(c)(1)(C), (c)(3). directs plan's trustees set an installment schedule demand payment " [a]s soon as practicable'' after employer's withdrawal. §1399(b)(1). If employer fails according schedule, plan may, at its option, invoke statutory acceleration provision. §1399(c)(5). fiduciaries "adversely affected act omission any party under'' may also sue collect unpaid debt, §1451(a)(1), within longer two limitations periods: "6 years date on which cause action arose,'' §1451(f)(1), "3 earliest plaintiff acquired should have actual knowledge existence such action,'' §1451(f)(2). Petitioner Bay Area Laundry Dry Cleaning Trust Fund (Fund) is for laundry workers. Respondents Ferbar Corporation Barnes (collectively, Ferbar) owned laundries contributed several years, but ceased contributions in March 1985. On December 12, 1986, Fund's demanded Ferbar's withdrawal liability, they calculated $45,570.80. informed company could satisfy paying $345.50 per month 240 months, beginning February 1, 1987. has never made 9, 1993, filed this seeking enforcement liability. District granted summary judgment statute grounds. Even if §1451(f)(1)'s six-year "accrual'' rule applied, reasoned, suit eight days too late, period began run 1987, missed first payment. Ninth Circuit affirmed different reasoning-specifically, withdrew Fund, view, commenced nearly late. Held: 1.The MPPAA's fund's liability does not begin until make fund. A "complete present action.'' Rawlings v. Ray, 312 96, 98, 61 473, 474, 85 L.Ed. 605. become present'' can file obtain relief. See Reiter Cooper, 507 258, 267, 113 1213, 1219-1220, 122 604. Section 1451(f)(1), starts "the incorporates these general rules. give claim relief against withdrawal; therefore, cannot trigger limitations. Instead, interest receiving ripens into triggering only when events transpired. First, calculate installments, pursuant Second, default due payable under trustees' schedule. Only then defaulted owed MPPAA, run. rejects diverse arguments invoked favor date-of-withdrawal rule. P. ___. 2.A timely payments came during six preceding suit, prior time are lost. (a) waived right urge before entitlement recover In Appeals, briefing merits oral argument here, argued was even installment. petition certiorari, however, characterized "determinative'' question divided Third Seventh Circuits: whether sues late forfeits outstanding it still succeeding complaint. Having urged resolution reason why grant positioned revive Cf. Taylor Freeland & Kronz, 503 638, 645, 112 1644, 1649, 118 280. Pp. ___-___. (b) creates obligation. This agrees with typically governing obligations: new action, carrying own period, arises each missed. That true though option accelerate entire debt defaults. Normally, permissive clause alter rules apply obligations. finds no indication Congress intended depart norm enacted MPPAA. Unless prepays, requires it, like other debtor, due. Like typical creditor, right, absent acceleration, fall due, default. thus same position parties ordinary transaction, there Accordingly, first, time-barred payment, subsequent installments proceed. 73 F.3d 971, reversed remanded. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Marsha S. Berzon, San Francisco, CA, petitioner. Edward C. Dumont, New York City, NY, amicus curiae. William F. Terheyden, respondents. Justice GINSBURG 1 (MPPAA), 94 Stat. 1208, §§1381-1461, An postwithdrawal trustees, prepay time. We resolve case issue concerning legislation, specifically: When liability? 2 Dismissing petitioner trust barred, Appeals held runs withdraws plan. reject ruling. 605 (1941). ripen Applying applicable accrual rule, we hold scheduled 3 Our holding prompts second question, one reached Appeals. brought more than respondents their contend petitioner's failure bars all disagree. imposes Consistent principles obligations, separate period. barred 4 5 protect financial solvency plans. generally Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 513 414, 416-417, 115 981, 985, 130 932 (1995); Connolly Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 211, 215-217, 106 1018, 1021-1022, 89 166 (1986); R.A. Gray 467 717, 722-724, 104 2709, 2714-2715, 81 601 (1984). most As relevant incurs effects withdrawal'' [C]omplete occurs "permanently ceases contribute plan'' covered operations plan.'' §1383(a).1 6 Three Terms ago, exhaustively described complex scheme calculating Plan, U.S., 417-419, 426, S.Ct., 985-987, 989-990. brief, sets total amount liability'' level roughly matches proportionate share "unfunded vested benefits.''' 725, 2715 (quoting §1381(b)(1)); see §1391. must, least, toward Payments approximates had withdrawing §1399(c)(1)(C). Interest accrues day year following 421, 987-988. up 20 §1399(c)(1)(B), principal, plus accrued interest, §1399(c)(4). 7 call upon propose Rather, places calculation burden trustees. receipt demand, dispute-resolution procedure involves reconsideration and, ultimately, arbitration. §§1399(b)(2), 1401(a)(1). requests arbitration, "due owing'' §1401(b)(1). challenges determination, interim statute's ""pay now, dispute later' collection procedure.'' Robbins Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling 800 F.2d 641, 642 (C.A.7 1986) (per curiam).2 8 Should fail It debt. entitled "bring appropriate legal equitable relief, both.'' §1451(a)(1). Suit §1451 be extends latter "in fraud concealment.'' Ibid. B 9 fund workers Francisco area. company) three area approximately 1990. For behalf employees facilities. 1983, laundries; facilities resumed participation Fund. 10 concluding completely withdrawn sent letter demanding $45,570.80 options: lump sum 60 letter, asked review decision §1399(b)(2)(B), received response explicitly directed request. July 8, notice initiation Arbitration proceedings yet taken place. 11 Despite "pay later'' provisions, April 14, warned delinquent would failed cure delinquency days. Northern California. complaint, App. 6-12, sought alternative, $25,375.00 come filing injunction requiring future complaint 1985, less 12 Pet. Cert. 6a-19a. relied alternative rationales. court concluded §1451(f)(2)'s three-year "discovery'' controlled. therefore held, because well aware delinquency. assuming believed nonetheless barred. court's 13 affirmed, reasoning. 971 (1996). rejected Court's conclusion required learning action. Adverting express terms §1451(f), "which clearly direc[t] courts later of' periods limitations,'' F.3d, 972, commence arose. Relying earlier Board Trustees Thibodo, 34 914 (1994), begins complete withdrawal-in case, 1985.'' 973. reading, 14 Judge Trott indicated his concurring opinion, 973, Circuit's conflicts Columbia Circuit, Joyce Clyde Sandoz Masonry, 871 1119 (1989). misses Id., 1122-1127. Circuits although disagreed carries triggers 15 Machinists' Kahle Engineering Corp., 43 852, 857-861 (C.A.3 1994) (statute payment); Central States, Southeast Southwest Areas Navco, 167, 172-173 1993) payment). 520 ----, 117 1690, 137 817 (1997), conflicts. II commences suit. Such result inconsistent basic principles, it. maintain 16 By terms, arose.'' §1451(f)(1). language, comprehend standard "a 474; Clark Iowa Wall. 583, 589, 22 427 (1875) ("All statutes limitation . ''). told us otherwise legislation issue, purposes 1220, 604 (1993) ("While theoretically possible create purpose run, another bringing will infer odd absence statute.''). contains 17 start clock, affords basis date. undo withdrawal, violate simply exiting takes given withdraw. Instead prohibiting leaving plans, imposed mandatory designed discourage withdrawals ex ante cushion impact post. 985-986; Connolly, 216-217, 1021-1022. scheme, "merely motion usual (and routine) process calculation, notification, request payment.'' Joyce, F.2d, 1124. 18 Any premature. previously explained, makes clear owes nothing demands 423, 988. Absent willing obligation, determine, pay, amount.'' Once made, baseline scheduled, unless chooses properly exercises option. §§1399(c)(2), 1401(b)(1). Until honor sue. 19 sum, transpire. violated Act. reaching our conclusion, overlooked Circuit. out those here reasons rejecting them. 21 Maintaining relies language provision empowers "plan fiduciary, employer, participant, beneficiary, adversely subtitle respect plan,'' asserts affected'' whenever withdraws. urges, Although offset harmful participant's exit, do doubt practical matter But off mark. points out, §1451(a)(1) "provide air adverse effect funds.'' Reply Brief 2. 23 1451 prescribes variety procedures governance civil actions enforce See, e.g., §1451(c) (jurisdiction federal state courts), §1451(d) (venue service process), §1451(e) (costs expenses). Subsection (a), headed [p]ersons actions,'' answers "standing'' question-who violation obligations established Act's substantive provisions. (a)(1) judicial remedies broad range plaintiffs-any affected.'' "adverse effect'' unlawful se, §10(a) Administrative Procedure Act, similarly persons remedies.3 justify Appeals' 24 adopting Thibodo applying did rely interpretation rested grounds, based interpretation, policy considerations. reasoned missed-payment approach render discovery superfluous, inevitably learn just around occurs; hence, always provide of'' periods. 918. 25 find infirm. 1451(f)'s twin govern much liability; "action section.'' §1451(f). involve "matters far beyond liability,'' including "transfers assets, reorganizations benefits termination plans,'' matters discovered accrues. 1125. superfluous retains vitality many cases governed §1451. 26 fares better. pegging "improperly plac[e] running control plaintiff.'' 917. unavoidable consequence adopted. fixed surely done so. Notably, adopted specific limits number steps assessment process.4 Congress's adoption looser "as requirement initial determination bespeaks deliberate legislative choice afford some flexibility gathering information performing calculations necessary assessment. 27 Furthermore, agree D.C. "significant incentives will, induce sponsors promptly calculate, 1126. funds imperative quickly, lost replaced calculates serves employer. And passes, likelihood receive increases. delay threatens position, constitute breach fiduciary duty actionable instance beneficiaries. Also, believes comply responsibility, assert laches objection arbitration contesting ibid. concerns, short, warrant extraordinary reading §1451(f) III 28 alone case. 1993. (which 1987), dates Because instituted alternatively entirety. supra, __. ruling implicates conflict Circuits. line view advanced 172-173. contrast, 857-861. conclude correct one. insofar seeks 30 merits-but certiorari-the need avoid submits, §1399(c)(2), provides: "Withdrawal shall accordance forth sponsor '' reads extending 1987-60 35; 16. At argument, further suggested purported allow letter's independently result. Tr. Oral Arg. 53. both Appellant 94-15976(CA9), p. 11. 31 satisfied, seek here. argue To contrary, stated: "On facts difference between positions determinative,'' [u]nder Navco statute, (as held).'' 15-16. These representations inaccurate if, now argues, event timely. certiorari date, ultimately Circuits, 280 (1992) (declining consider withheld merits). 32 responsibility establishes Just so wait particular suing issue. "arises missed.'' 857. indicates 33 applies purposes, assume invariably lead permissive. ("In default, require immediate '') (emphasis added). confronting decide course best interests plan, preserve 859, n. (describing might interests). This, again, creditor refrains exercising comes due.5 Rejecting endorse, regarded foregoing controlling contractual only. Where assent suit,'' concluded, "only employer''-"the permit amortize over whole presumptively outset.'' 172 deleted). appeared entertain similar ("Ferbar agreed proposed result, appears contract been formed.''). 35 turns origin-contractual otherwise-of Courts repeatedly applied judgments, obviously contractual.6 Nor assent. itself transaction. 36 not, believed, [t]ur[n] twenty-six.'' 172. 37 *** 38 stated, reversed, remanded consistent opinion. 39 ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. "obligation contribute'' either collective bargaining agreement labor-law prescriptions. §1392(a). special definitions industries. §1383(b), (c). "partial circumstances. §§1385, 1386. §1399(c)(2) ("Withdrawal notwithstanding appeal determinations schedule.''); §1401(d) (employer "until arbitrator issues final submitted arbitration''). §702 ("A person suffering wrong agency aggrieved meaning thereof.''). §1399(a) furnish requested days); §1399(b)(2)(A) 90 (withdrawal sponsor's demand); §1401(b)(2)(B) (either responds 180 reconsideration). Dist. 857 (""[W]here giving certain contingencies declare instalment, instalment becomes indebtedness exercise option.''') 51 Am.Jur.2d, Limitation Actions §133 (1970)); A. Corbin, Contracts §951 (1951) (" [T]he join instalments him falls regular course.''). accelerated earlier. Therefore, contention amounted accelerate. 39. Kuhn Kuhn, 273 Ind. 67, 402 N.E.2d 989, 991 (1980) (court-ordered child support judgment); Dent Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 208 N.W.2d 734, 737 (1973) (same); Roberts Roberts, 69 Wash.2d 863, 420 P.2d 864, 866 (1966) (child alimony); cf. Miller Miller, 209, 211 (C.A.D.C. 1941) (suit alimony installment).

Classification Label: 7