Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.
496 U.S. 633 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous provision in its enabling statute is entitled to judicial deference so long as it is permissible and rational. Courts may not impose procedural requirements on an agency's informal adjudication beyond what is required by the APA or the Constitution.
Facts:
- The LTV Corporation (LTV), a steel company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.
- At the time, LTV sponsored three defined benefit pension plans that were chronically underfunded, with liabilities exceeding assets by almost $2.3 billion.
- A principal goal of LTV's bankruptcy was to terminate these pension plans and shift the unfunded liability to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the government's pension insurance entity.
- At LTV's request and due to the risk of increasing losses, the PBGC involuntarily terminated the plans, assuming control of their assets and responsibility for paying insured benefits to LTV's employees.
- Following the termination, LTV negotiated new pension arrangements, known as 'follow-on' plans, with the United Steelworkers union to supplement the PBGC's payments and make workers whole for their lost benefits.
- The PBGC had a pre-existing policy against such follow-on plans, viewing them as an abuse of the termination insurance system that allowed a company to subsidize its ongoing pension program with government funds.
- Subsequently, the PBGC determined that LTV's financial circumstances had dramatically improved.
- Based on LTV's adoption of the abusive follow-on plans and its improved financial state, the PBGC exercised its authority under ERISA § 4047 to restore the terminated plans, thereby returning full funding responsibility to LTV.
Procedural Posture:
- LTV refused to comply with the PBGC's restoration decision.
- The PBGC filed an enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The District Court vacated the PBGC's restoration decision, finding the agency had exceeded its authority.
- The PBGC, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the PBGC's decision was 'arbitrary and capricious' and contrary to law.
- The PBGC petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's (PBGC) decision to restore terminated pension plans, based on its policy against 'follow-on' plans and the employer's improved financial condition, constitute an arbitrary and capricious action or an action contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. The PBGC's decision to restore the pension plans was not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. First, the agency was not required to explicitly consider the policies of federal bankruptcy and labor law; its duty under its enabling statute, ERISA, was to act in a manner 'appropriate and consistent' with its duties under Title IV of ERISA, and it was correct to focus on that mandate. Second, under the principles of Chevron deference, the PBGC's policy against follow-on plans is a permissible construction of the broad and ambiguous restoration authority granted in § 4047, as it rationally serves ERISA's goals of encouraging plan continuation and maintaining low insurance premiums. Finally, the APA establishes the maximum procedural requirements for informal adjudication, and a court cannot impose additional procedures on an agency simply for the sake of 'fundamental fairness' when neither the APA nor the Due Process Clause requires them.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The PBGC's use of its restoration power to prohibit follow-on plans, at least in the context of an involuntary termination, is contrary to its statutory mandate. While the anti-follow-on policy might be justified for voluntary terminations where it could deter a company's decision, it is unwarranted for involuntary terminations initiated by the PBGC itself, as it merely punishes the company and its employees. In such cases, restoration should be based only on a sufficient improvement in the company's financial condition. The case should be remanded to determine if the financial justification alone was adequate.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice White
Yes and No. While the PBGC's anti-follow-on policy is a legally permissible basis for restoration, the agency's decision notice appears to rely on both that policy and LTV's improved financial condition in conjunction, not as independent grounds. The Court of Appeals found the PBGC's financial analysis to be flawed, and this Court should not rely on counsel's post hoc rationalizations that the grounds were separate. Therefore, the case should be remanded to the agency to determine if it would restore the plans based on the anti-follow-on policy alone.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of modern administrative law, strongly affirming two key principles of judicial review. First, it solidifies the application of Chevron deference, granting significant leeway to agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes they administer, so long as their interpretation is reasonable. Second, it reinforces the holding of Vermont Yankee, prohibiting federal courts from imposing their own notions of proper procedure upon agencies conducting informal adjudications beyond what the APA requires. The ruling clarifies that an agency's primary obligation is to its enabling statute, not to a free-floating consideration of all potentially relevant federal policies, thereby strengthening agency authority and limiting judicial oversight.
Unlock the full brief for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.