Cite as: 534 U. S. 438 (2002)
Stevens, J., dissenting
the Court concludes that a successor in interest to a signa-tory cannot be liable for the retirees of its predecessor under the catchall provision. Thus, the Court reads the Act to assign liability first to the signatory operator, assuming it is still in business, then to any related persons of that signa-tory, and if none exists or is still in business, to the successor in interest of a related person. Liability can never be assigned to a direct successor—the most logical recipient of liability, after the signatory itself.
Two examples illustrate the absurdity of the Court's reading. First, imagine that corporations "A" and "B" operate coal mines in Kentucky and Illinois, respectively. A and B are affiliated corporations; let us say they are members of the same controlled group of corporations. In 1974, each company became a signatory to one of the coal agreements. Subsequently, they both sell their assets to separate purchasers. Under the Court's reading of the Act, the purchaser of the Kentucky mines would be responsible for the health care costs of the Illinois miners and the purchaser of the Illinois mines would be assigned the retirees of the Kentucky company, but neither purchaser would be liable for its predecessor's retired employees.
Now, consider a slightly different scenario in which A still operates a coal mine, but B runs a dairy farm. They are still members of the same controlled group of corporations, however, only A is a signatory of the 1974 agreement. In this hypothetical, when A and B sell their assets, under the Court's reading of the statute, the purchaser of the dairy farm will be liable for the retired miners' benefits while the purchaser of the coal mine has no liability. If that result is not absurd, it is surely incoherent. Why would Congress order such an odd result?
The answer is simple—Congress did not intend this result. Commenting on the final text of the bill that was ultimately enacted, two of the Senators sponsoring the measure explained their understanding of the statutory text to their col-
465
Page: Index Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007