Termination of a defined-benefit plan; ERISA; Whether 29 USC § 1342(c) requires a judicial adjudication to terminate a pension benefit plan; Jones & Laughlin Hourly Pension Plan v. LTV Corp. (2d Cir.); In re UAL Corp. (7th Cir.); Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Alloytek, Inc.; Allied Pilots Ass’n v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. (DC Cir.); In re Syntex Fabrics, Inc. Pension Plan (3d Cir.); Procedural due process; Leary v. Daeschner; Board of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth; Duncan v. Muzyn; Whether defendant-Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s (PBGC) decision to terminate the plan was “arbitrary & capricious”; Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (Unpub. 6th Cir.); 5 USC § 706(2)(A); Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp.: National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.; §§ 1342(a) & 1302(a)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court joined other circuits and held that § 1342(c) of the ERISA does not require a judicial adjudication to terminate a pension-benefit plan. Rather, a plan may be terminated by an agreement between defendant-PBGC and the plan administrator. The PBGC and Delphi Corporation agreed to terminate Delphi’s salaried pension plan. Plaintiffs-retirees sued, objecting to the termination of the plan. The district court granted PBGC summary judgment. The retirees argued that termination of the plan required a judicial decree. But, after reviewing the statute, the court concluded that § 1342(c) provides an additional procedural alternative for terminating a distressed pension plan—by agreement between PBGC and the plan administrator. The court noted that this interpretation has been adopted in other circuits. It also rejected the retirees’ claim that the lack of a judicial hearing violated their due process rights, holding that they did “not have a property interest in the full amount of their vested pension benefits because the Salaried Plan document provides that only funded benefits at the time of plan termination are nonforfeitable.” Finally, the court rejected the retirees’ argument that the PBGC’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” Affirmed.