Laserfiche WebLink
The district court framed the legal issue before it in these <br />terms: <br />Neither bankruptcy law nor ERISA expressly states <br />whether the bankruptcy court or PBGC has ultimate <br />responsibility to determine the actuarial present <br />value of guaranteed benefits in the reorganization <br />context. <br />Op. at 12. "Nevertheless," the district court concluded, <br />"principles of statutory interpretation place that responsibility <br />on the bankruptcy court." Id. <br />The district court further observed that the bankruptcy <br />court had reached its conclusion "only after holding an <br />evidentiary hearing at which expert witnesses testified," and <br />that the bankruptcy court "acknowledg[ed] its obligation to <br />determine the present value of PBGC's claims in accordance with <br />the overriding policy goals embodied in the Bankruptcy Code." <br />I~ at 13-14. However, the district court disagreed with the <br />bankruptcy court's "legal conclusion" that deference was due to <br />PBGC's interpretation. Id. at 14. <br />In particular, the district court reversed on the <br />narrow ground that this Court used the "wrong standard of review" <br />in deferring to the PBGC. Id. at 13. Thus, it concluded that <br />"application of an improper standard of review ~ have prevented <br />the bankruptcy court from fulfilling its statutory obligation to <br />independently ascertain an appropriate discount rate." Id. at 14 <br />(emphasis added). Accordingly, the district court remanded for <br />~ 1301(a)(18), control determination of the amount of PBGC's <br />unfunded benefit liabilities claim. <br />- 5 - <br />