Spink

Spink v. Lockheed Corp.

Good Law
125 F.3d 1257·97 Daily Journal DAR 11736·1997 WL 559723·21 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1593·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23732
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 10, 1997No. 92-56094California2,542 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Brunetti, J.

Paul Spink filed a five-count complaint on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals against Lockheed Corporation and certain individual defendants (collectively “Lockheed”). Spink alleged that Lockheed’s retirement plan violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 , et seq., as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (OBRA 1986), Pub.L. No. 99-509, 100 Stat. 1874 (1986). Counts I and II of the complaint alleged that the OBRA 1986 amendments to ERISA and ADEA entitled Spink and similarly situated employees to benefits under the Lockheed Corporation Retirement Plan for Certain Salaried Employees (“the Plan”) calculated on the basis of periods worked both before and after the effective date of the statute. Count III alleged that amendments made by Lockheed to the Plan constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and a prohibited transaction under ERISA §§ 403, 404 & 406. Count V alleged that because Spink relied on representations made by Lockheed that he would receive benefits under the Plan, Lockheed was estopped from denying him benefits. Spink…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.