Stokes v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 206 F.3d 420 (4^th Cir. 2000)-Stokes asserted that the plan illegally denied him a severance benefit.  Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) laid him off as part of a reduction in force.  WEC gave him the choice of taking a lump-sum severance payment or a special retirement option, but not both.  He filed suit, alleging age discrimination and ERISA violations.  For the ERISA violations, he alleged that a certain coordinating arrangement between WEC and Westinghouse Savannah (a wholly owned subsidiary)—through which Westinghouse Savannah transferred to WEC the payments that the Department of Energy paid it as reimbursement for severance benefits -- violated 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1) (prohibiting a plan administrator or a plan fiduciary from transferring to or for the benefit of a party in interest any assets of the plan.)

This court found that Stokes' ERISA argument failed for several reasons.  First, Stokes demonstrated no specially created trust funds held for the benefit of employees' severance benefits.  Second, he proved no particular right to severance benefits since the retirement option was a fair alternative.  And third, he made no showing that the transfer of money from Westinghouse Savannah to WEC depleted Westinghouse Savannah's funds at all, since the Department of Energy reimbursed Westinghouse Savannah.