# LOCKHEED CORP. Et Al. v. SPINK

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 10, 1996 · 517 U.S. 882

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433317

## Case

- **Full name:** Lockheed Corp. v. Spink Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 10, 1996
- **Citations:** 517 U.S. 882; 116 S. Ct. 1783; 135 L. Ed. 2d 153; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3717
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Breyer
- **Judges:** Breyer, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Stevens, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 500 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/9433317

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)
- holding that decision to spin off division of company was not a fiduciary act

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433317. Public record. Not legal advice.