# Peoria Union Stock Yards Co. Retirement Plan v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · January 20, 1983 · 698 F.2d 320

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8916351

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEORIA UNION STOCK YARDS COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN v. The PENN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** January 20, 1983
- **Citations:** 698 F.2d 320; 3 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2590; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31224
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Bonsal, Jge, Pell, Posner
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8916351

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that an insurer was a fiduciary with respect to assets it held in its general account because those assets were “plan assets”
- describing the term “investment contract” as “a catch-all” phrase to include “interests that have the functional attributes of stock and other formal securities but are not so denominated”

## Opinion text

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
The appellee has filed a petition for rehearing and we permitted it to file a supplemental memorandum of law by counsel newly hired since the panel handed down its decision. The petition seeks essentially clarification and modification based on a number of arguments and authorities that the appellee’s original counsel had not drawn to the attention of the court. In view of the fact that the panel decision merely reverses the dismissal of the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(6)(b), the case is at an early stage and the appellee will have ample opportunity to present its arguments to the district court consistently with the flexible contours of the doctrine of law of the case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8916351. Public record. Not legal advice.