explaining that Section 1106 is directed to “commercial bargains” such as leasing, sales, exchanges of property, money lending, credit extensions, and furnishing goods and services, which put plan funds at risk if they are not conducted at arm’s length
How later courts described this case
- explaining that Section 1106 is directed to “commercial bargains” such as leasing, sales, exchanges of property, money lending, credit extensions, and furnishing goods and services, which put plan funds at risk if they are not conducted at arm’s length
- holding that an employer does not act as a fiduciary when it establishes, modifies or terminates an ERISA-covered pension plan
- holding that Court of Appeals therein erred by not first resolving issue of defendant’s fiduciary status before determining whether there had been a violation of § 1106, another provision of ERISA which regulates the conduct of plan fiduciaries
- holding that a person becomes a fiduciary within the meaning of the statute only “when fulfilling certain defined functions” (internal quotation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*898 Justice Breyer,
with whom Justice Souter joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join the Court’s opinion except for its conclusion in Part III-B that “the payment of benefits pursuant to an amended plan, regardless of what the plan requires of the employee in return for those benefits, does not constitute a prohibited transaction.” Ante, at 895. The legal question addressed in Part III-B is a difficult one, which we need not here answer and which would benefit from further development in the lower courts, where interested parties who are experienced in these highly :technical, important matters could present their views. ' Accordingly, I would follow the suggestion of the Solicitor General that the Court not reach the issue in this case.