A loss for plan participants in an ERISA-related lawsuit broughtagainst Verizon has yielded potential clarity — and perhaps a bitof confusion — in what sponsors are required to do in response toparticipants’ requests for plan information.

In 2009, employees of Verizon brought suit in U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Texas after their pension planswere transferred from Verizon’s plan to Idearc Inc.’s, a companyformed when Verizon spun off its information services unit in2006.

More than 2,000 former Verizon plan participants were moved toIdearc’s plan. Some had been retired as long as 10 years prior tothe spinoff.

In response to financial difficulties, Idearc began reducingbenefits, ultimately filing before emerging from bankruptcy in 2010under its new name, SuperMedia.

SuperMedia further reduced benefits after it experienced morefinancial troubles, affecting the original Verizon employees.

The plaintiffs in Murphy et al v. Verizon Communicationschallenged the company’s right to transfer the participants fromtheir plan.

Their claim revolved around Verizon’s failure to comply withplan documents, specifically that Verizon did not supplyparticipants with investment plan guidelines, which they claimedwas a breach of the company’s fiduciary duty under ERISA.

Section 104(b)(4) of ERISA says sponsors must reply to writtenrequests for plan descriptions, annual reports, terminationreports, bargaining agreements, trust and contract agreements, or“other instruments under which the plan is established oroperated.”

The plaintiffs argued that the investment guidelines theyrequested — which were not produced by Verizon — should have beendone so under the “other instruments,” or so-called “catch=all”clause of 104(b)(4).

But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the districtcourt’s dismissal of all the plaintiffs’ claims, effectively sayingVerizon did nothing wrong when it transferred the pensions to thespun-off company.

In its decision, the appellate court noted that that themajority of Circuit Courts have applied a narrow interpretation tothe “catch-all” clause; only formal legal documents related to plangovernance are required to be disclosed. The investment guidelinesrequested by the plaintiffs failed to meet that standard.

But the Fifth Circuit did note that a Department of Laborbulletin has said “statements of investment policy” are a part of“documents and instruments governing the plan,” presumably leavingthe door open for further questions about what documents can beconsidered as “instruments under which the plan is established oroperated.”