Pilkington Plc v. Perelman

72 F.3d 1396 64 USLW 2410 , 19 Employee Benefits Cas. 2494 , 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9859 , 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 17 ,163, Pens. Plan Guide P 23915O PILKINGTON PLC; Pilkington Visioncare, Inc.; Pilkington Visioncare Pension Plan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald O. PERELMAN; Howard Gittis; Jewel S. LaFontant; Bruce Slovin; Fred R. Sullivan; Pierre A. Rinfret; Revlon, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-55573. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 1994. Decided Dec. 27, 1995. Janis L. Harwell and M. Scott Donahey, Holtzmann, Wise & Shepard, Palo Alto, California, for plaintiffs-appellants. Frank Rothman, Harriet S. Posner, Kenneth A. Ostrow, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Los Angeles, California, for defendants-appellees. Lauren M. Serper, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: FEINBERG, * SCHROEDER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge SCHROEDER; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI. SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: 1 This is a suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Secs.…