This case, a sequel to General American Life Ins. Co. v. Castonguay, 984 F.2d 1518 (9th Cir.1993), is an action by a creditor of an ERISA trust against the Trustees in their representative capacity. The creditor seeks to enforce a judgment against a portion of the assets of the trust which the Trustees contend were marked by practice as “in re serve,” to be returned on termination to the employer contributors to the trust. Holding that these assets are part of the trust, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the creditor.

FACTS

General American Life Insurance Company (General) managed health insurance by contract with the Trustees of the Northern California Motor Car Dealers Association Trust Fund (the Trustees). The trust, as we have already determined, was an ERISA trust. General American Life, 984 F.2d at 1519 . Federal law, accordingly, governs the relationship “between plan and trustee,” id. at 1521 , and so must govern the determination of what constitutes the res of the trust.

The trust was created by 239 separate employers, auto dealers in Northern California. Each signed a subscription agreement which provided as follows:

The trust to which the dealers subscribed provided:

The trust further provided:

The Trustees maintained reserves for- a variety of purposes, one of which was called “Subscriber Reserves” and consisted of an amount equal to the first monthly premium. It was the practice of the trust to inform new subscribers that if an employer terminated its participation in the trust, having paid all monthly premiums as required, then the amount of the employer’s subscriber reserve would be refunded to the terminating employer.

Both the contract with General for insurance and the trust terminated. The trust was indebted to General; General sought to recover what it was owed.

PROCEEDINGS

In the previous litigation we held that the Trustees were not responsible in their individual capacities to General. Following this decision, General moved for summary judgment against the trust for the balance owing in the sum of $3,776,882, plus interest. The Trustees responded by contending that the so-called subscriber reserve funds were not subject to enforcement of General’s claim. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of General. The Trustees appeal.

ANALYSIS

The Trustees pitch their entire ease on the practice by which they obtained the subscriber reserve from the dealers on the representation that, if fully paid-up, the terminating dealer would get refunded the amount it contributed to the reserve. The argument has some appeal but runs squarely up against the explicit provisions of the trust by terms of which neither corpus nor income can revert to a subscriber, and no trust asset may be used for the benefit, of a subscriber. These provisions of the trust, which are conclusive, merely restate the requirements of federal law governing ERISA trusts. 29 U.S.C. § 1103 (c)(1).

The subscription agreements do not add anything to the Trustees’ argument. These agreements make no reference to returning the subscriber reserve. Indeed, the agreements commit the subscribers to providing such amounts as may be required to maintain the group insurance involved. The Trustees speak of the subscriber reserve as being “earmarked” for return to the paid-up subscribers. Once the subscriber paid its money into the trust the Trustees found no effective legal way of distinguishing the reserve payment from the general trust assets. The Trustees’ oral representation to the subscribers cannot alter the written ERISA plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a)(1)(D).

AFFIRMED.