Faircloth v. Lundy Packing Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the purpose of the civil penalty is to “punish noncompliance with ERISA”
• noting that “if Congress had intended [for the statute] to encompass all documents that provide information about the plan and benefits, Congress could have used language to that effect”
• noting that the court may consider prejudice and bad faith in exercising its discretion
• holding “the statutory language ‘other instruments under which the plan 37 Appellate Case: 22-4056 Document: 99-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2024 Page: 38 is established or operated’ is clear and unambiguous” (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4))
• explaining that ERISA § 1024(b)(4) requires disclosure of plan documents and “other instruments under which the plan is established or operated” and finding an IPS to be disclosable as a “formal document[] under which an ESOP is managed.”
• noting the plain meaning “encompasses [a] formal or legal ne document[] under which a plan is set up or managed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Faircloth v. Lundy Packing Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Faircloth v. Lundy Packing Co.
  Supreme Court· 1997-01-13