finding Section 206(d)’s governing regulations “specifically exclude from ERISA’s anti-alienation bar actions by the pension plan itself to . . . recover debts owed by the participant to the plan as a result of a prior over- payment of benefits”
How later courts described this case
- finding Section 206(d)’s governing regulations “specifically exclude from ERISA’s anti-alienation bar actions by the pension plan itself to . . . recover debts owed by the participant to the plan as a result of a prior over- payment of benefits”
- noting that “we do not believe that Congress intended the anti-alienation provision to dilute the potential relief available to pension beneficiaries. Instead, we read section 206(d)(1
- stating that section 1109(a) “expressly states that the trustee who violates a fiduciary duty to the plan must make good to the plan”
- holding anti-alienation clause does not protect the benefits of a beneficiary who breached a fiduciary duty to the fund
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
May 11, 1993.
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, and BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing filed by the appellee-cross appellant Robert J. Coar in the above captioned matters having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the court in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.