Beck v. Pace International Union

551 U.S. 96, 127 S. Ct. 2310, 168 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2007)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Beck v. Pace International Union

United States Supreme Court
551 U.S. 96, 127 S. Ct. 2310, 168 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2007)

Facts

Crown Paper Company and its parent company, Crown Vantage, Inc. (collectively, Crown), employed 2,600 workers in seven paper mills. Crown sponsored multiple defined-benefit pension plans. Pace International Union (union) (plaintiff) represented Crown employees who were participants in the plans. Crown filed for bankruptcy and proceeded to liquidate its assets. With respect to the pension plans, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) specified procedures for terminating single-employer pension plans and for final distribution of a plan’s assets. Specifically, ERISA required the plan administrator to either purchase annuities to satisfy all benefit liabilities under the plan or otherwise fully provide all benefit liabilities under the plan. The union proposed that Crown terminate the plans by merging them with the union’s own multiemployer plan. Crown, however, discovered that it had overfunded some of its pension plans and that after purchasing annuities sufficient to satisfy its obligations to the plan participants and beneficiaries, Crown would retain a projected $5 million reversion for its creditors. The union’s plan would have required Crown to transfer all assets, including the $5 million, to the multiemployer plan. Crown therefore rejected the union’s proposal and proceeded with the annuity purchase. The union and two plan participants filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court against the trustee of the Crown bankruptcy estate (defendant), alleging that Crown’s directors had breached their fiduciary obligations by neglecting to give due consideration to the union’s merger proposal. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the union and ordered that the $5 million reversion be distributed for the benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries. The district court and court of appeals both affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted the trustee’s petition for certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 833,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership