Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Faircloth v. Lundy Packing Co.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided August 2, 1996No. 95-1275Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMichael, Circuit Judge

I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it provides for disclosure of the Plan’s funding and investment policies, for non-disclosure of cost-sharing policies, trustee expense policies, and trustees’ meeting minutes, and for a remand to determine whether a more severe penalty should be assessed. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s holding that Plan participants are not entitled to see appraisal reports (and supporting documentation), the Plan’s tax determination letter, and the Plan’s fiduciary bonding policy. The Plan participants should be allowed to see this latter…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Crandon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. King v. St. Vincent's HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. SchoonejongenSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Donovan v. CunninghamCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API