Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I LAW OFFICE
STUART REILLY, P.C.
2 po Box 80410
Phoenix, Arizona 85060-0410
3 602/ 912-9200
4 Stuart]. Reilly, #005275
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 .
Stuart J. Reilly, )
10 ) Case No. CIV 02-2218 PHX BTM
Plaintiff, )
11 )
vs. ) SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
12 ) RE: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
13 Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan ) IN OPPOSITION TO
and Trust, a retirement plan; Charles M. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
14 Brewer, Ltd. Restated Pension Plan, a ) PARTIAL SUMMARY
retirement plan; Ross Gordon and Associates, ) JUDGMENT ON COUNT ONE
15 Inc., n/k/a CBIZ Actuarial & Benefits )
Consultants, Inc., a corporation; and Charles )
16 M. Brewer, )
)
17 Defendants. )
ix )
19 Plaintiff hereby submits the following supplemental authority to Plaintiffs Response in
20 Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count One.
21 The following citation of authority should be added to Section 4, on page 8, following
22 line 14:
23 As a matter of law, a merger or conversion of a defined benefit plan to a defined
24 contribution plan causes the defined benefit plan to tenninate. Hickerson v. Veliscol Chemical
25
26
-1-
suppnsmpnmt Aumopirv Rp; PLAlNTIFF’S Rpspowsp IN opposmow ro oEr1;N1>ANrs’ Moriow pop pA1mAt
sumivmpv JUDGMENT on coum onp
c 9 2:02-cv—O2218—BTI\}lI1§l|iBYFl/iCM|ZP$’dgE1"ri1Ré)r§iT§0/BRING Pii`éld“6l§758?E’ci6§L Page 1 of 3

l Corp., 778 F.2d 365, 375 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied 479 U.S. 815, 107 S.Ct. 70, 93 L.Ed.2d
2 28 (1986).
3 "ERISA contemplates plan amendments and such transactions as plan
mergers, consolidations and transfers of assets. In the context of all
4 these, it does specifically state that a conversion from a defined-benefit
5 to a defined-contribution plan causes a plan termination, ERISA
§404l(f) [sic.], 29 U.S.C. § 134l(f) [sic.]; Treas.Reg. § 1.411(d)-
6 2(C)(2)." (Emphasis added)'
7 ERISA § 404l(e), 29 U.S.C. § 134l(e) states:
8 The adoption of an amendment to a plan which causes the plan to
become a plan described in 1321(b)(l) of this title constitutes a
9 termination of the plan.2
1() Upon termination, the participants are entitled to an immediate distribution of the assets of the
11 former plan, 29 U.S.C. § 41l(a)(3). Hickerson, supra.
12 Consequently, Defendants’ argument—and keystone of their defense—that the
13 purported "merger" was not a distributable event because a termination of the defined benefit
14 plan did not occur is without merit.
15
16 SUBMITTED this 19th day of September 2005.
17 STUART J. REILLY, P.C.
“ @@/%%;/2-,
19 Stuart J. Reilly
20 Attorney for Plaintiff
24
25 I Should read ERISA § 404l(e), 29 U.S.C. § I34l(e).
2 A § l32l(b)(1) plan is a defined contribution plan—such as the Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. Profit
26 Sharing Plan and Trust—which is comprised of individual accounts.
-2-
supptisiviienr/it Auruomrv RE; PLAINTlFF’S Response IN opposnrron ro nersnomrsr Morton rox PARTIAL
suMMARv iuoomrm on count ons
IL V. CMB, LTD. PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND R , L
C e 2:O2—cv—O2218—BT|\7I§LBYP Document 208 Filed Page 2 of 3

1 Electronically filed this 20th day
of September 2005 with the Clerk of Court,
2 United States District Court, District of Arizona
3 Courtesy copy mailed this
4 20th day of September 2005 to:
5 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Court
6 5160 Courthouse
940 Front Street
7 San Diego, CA 92101
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-3-
SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY RE; PLAlNTlFF’S RESPONSE IN oPPoS1T1oN TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION Pon PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT ONE
RETLLY vt CMB, LTD. PROFIT SHARING l?LAN AND TRUST, ET AL
Ca 2:02-cv-02218-BTIVI-LSP Document 208 Filed O9/20/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 208

Filed 09/20/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 208

Filed 09/20/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 208

Filed 09/20/2005

Page 3 of 3