From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan v. LTV Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jul 17, 1987
824 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1987)

Summary

holding the consent order in an ERISA action was proper because plan participants were not entitled to pre-termination notice or hearings where it was agreed by the trustee and administrator of the plan that the plan must be terminated

Summary of this case from Acosta v. Bratcher

Opinion

No. 1250, Docket 87-6104.

Argued May 20, 1987.

Decided July 17, 1987.

R.A. King, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Kenneth R. Bruce, Buchanan Ingersoll, Pittsburgh, Pa., Stuart Cotton, Mound Cotton Wollan, New York City, of counsel), for appellants Miller and Shaffer.

Frank H. McCulloch, Sp. Counsel, Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., Washington, D.C. (Gary M. Ford, Gen. Counsel, Lincoln Weed, Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.

Frank Cummings, Washington, D.C. (LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby MacRae, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for defendant-appellee LTV Corp.

Appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Owen, J., which denied appellants' motion to stay and/or vacate a Consent Order previously signed by the district court. The Consent Order was submitted to the court by the administrators of certain pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The Consent Order appointed the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as statutory trustee of the plans and terminated them. Appellants, participants in the plans, complain that, by approving the termination without affording them an opportunity to be heard, the district court's judgment violates Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1301-1461 (West 1985 Supp. 1987), as amended by the Single-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1986, Pub.L. No. 99-272, Title XI (1986).

Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.


David Miller and William Shaffer appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Owen, J., which denied their motion to stay and/or vacate a Consent Order previously signed by Judge Owen. The Consent Order was submitted to Judge Owen by The LTV Corporation and LTV Steel Company, the administrators of the Jones Laughlin Retirement Plan, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The Consent Order appointed PBGC to serve as statutory trustee of the plan and terminated it.

Appellants, participants in the plan, complain that, by approving the termination without affording them an opportunity to challenge the termination decision, the district court violated the notice and hearing provisions set forth in Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1301-1461 (West 1985 Supp. 1987) (ERISA), as amended by the Single-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1986, Pub.L. No. 99-272, Title XI (1986).

In a companion appeal, we rejected the claim that ERISA entitles plan participants to pre-termination notice and hearings where, as here, PBGC and the plan administrator agree that a plan must be terminated. See In re: Jones Laughlin Hourly Pension Plan, 824 F.2d 197 (2d Cir. 1987). That decision controls this case as well.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan v. LTV Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jul 17, 1987
824 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1987)

holding the consent order in an ERISA action was proper because plan participants were not entitled to pre-termination notice or hearings where it was agreed by the trustee and administrator of the plan that the plan must be terminated

Summary of this case from Acosta v. Bratcher

permitting unions seeking to vacate the termination of pension plans to intervene

Summary of this case from Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Slater Steels Corp.
Case details for

Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan v. LTV Corp.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE JONES LAUGHLIN RETIREMENT PLAN, AND PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jul 17, 1987

Citations

824 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1987)

Citing Cases

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Slater Steels Corp.

The Union unquestionably represents at least some members of the Plans, and therefore has an unmistakable…

Jones & Laughlin Hourly Pension Plan v. LTV Corp.

The district court's order approving that termination is the subject of a companion appeal. See In re Jones …