Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Committee Peter Formo Richard E. Miller Norman C. Rigby v. Administrator of the Hughes Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan

Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; Dissent by Judge NORRIS.

The Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Committee (the “Committee”) and three individual participants in the Hughes Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) [collectively the “Retirees”] brought an action under § 502 of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 , against the Plan administrator (the Administration). The Retirees alleged that the Administrator breached his fiduciary duties and violated ERISA disclosure requirements when he refused to provide them with a list of the names and addresses of Plan participants. The district court dismissed the Retirees’ complaint for failure to state a claim and denied the Administrator’s request for attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

BACKGROUND

The Committee was formed for the purpose of communicating with Plan participants and beneficiaries about their rights under the Plan and Hughes Aircraft’s failure to use surplus Plan assets to increase benefits. In April 1990, the Committee wrote to the Administrator to request a list of Plan participants’ names and addresses.…

dissenting.

In Acosta v. Pacific Enterprises, 950 F.2d 611 (9th Cir.1991), as amended on reh’g (9th Cir.1992), the plaintiff, a participant in a Pacific Enterprises’ pension plan, requested that the plan trustee provide him with a list of the names, addresses, and voting shares of Pacific Enterprises’ stock held by each plan participant so that he could solicit votes in a board of directors election. We rejected Acosta’s claim that ERISA required a fiduciary to disclose the list because such information was not “sufficiently related to the provision of benefits or the defrayment of expenses.” 1 Id. at 619 . We held that “common law trust duties regarding the disclosure of information to beneficiaries may be read into ERISA ... only to the extent that they relate to the provision of benefits or the defrayment of expenses.” 2 Id. at 618 . Under Acosta , therefore, ERISA does not mandate disclosure unless there is a sufficient nexus between the information requested and the provision of benefits or the defrayment of expenses.

I agree with the well-reasoned decision of the district court in this case. Following Acosta , the district court held that the Administrator is under no…

39 F.3d 1002 63 USLW 2317 , 18 Employee Benefits Cas. 2497 , Pens. Plan Guide P 23903P HUGHES SALARIED RETIREES ACTION COMMITTEE; Peter Formo; Richard E. Miller; Norman C. Rigby, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF the HUGHES NON-BARGAINING RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-55384. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 1993. Decided Nov. 7, 1994. As Modified Feb. 13, 1995. Seth Kupferberg, Sipser, Weinstock, Harper & Dorn, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants. Robert F. Walker, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Santa Monica, CA, for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: FLETCHER, PREGERSON, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; Dissent by Judge NORRIS. PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: 1 The Hughes Salaried Retirees Action Committee (the "Committee") and three individual participants in the Hughes Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan (the "Plan") [collectively the "Retirees"] brought an action under Sec. 502 of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132 , against the Plan administrator (the…