In Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Sheets Enterprise, No. 24 cv 2277 (N.D. Ill.), a district court held that an employer could not avoid being held liable for withdrawal liability simply because it...more
4/23/2025
/ Arbitration ,
Business Entities ,
Dissolution ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Health and Welfare Plans ,
Jurisdiction ,
Pensions ,
Preemption ,
Statute of Limitations
In Central States, S.E. & S.W. Pension Fund v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-cv-16770, 2025 WL 81358 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 13, 2025), the district court affirmed that a multiemployer pension plan’s calculation of withdrawal liability...more
Multiemployer benefit plans generally require contributing employers to submit “remittance reports” that identify the employees that performed covered work, the type of work performed, and the amount of time worked. Plans...more
1/27/2025
/ Collective Bargaining ,
Compliance ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Contributions ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Employment Litigation ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Pensions ,
Recordkeeping Requirements ,
Reporting Requirements ,
Retirement Plan ,
Unions
Under 29 U.S.C. § 1301(b)(1), all “trades or businesses” under common control with an employer that has withdrawn from a multiemployer pension plan are jointly and severally liable for the employer’s withdrawal liability. ...more
When an employer withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan, the plan’s trustees must notify the employer of the amount of its withdrawal liability and demand payment. Employers assessed with withdrawal liability often...more
Employers may be bound by multiemployer pension plans’ trust agreements and collections policies, but the force of these governing documents may have its limits. In Nevada Resorts Ass’n–Int’l All. of Theatrical Stage Emps....more
In Buckner v. Murray, No. 21-cv-567, 2024 WL 1366785 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2024), the court dismissed the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan’s suit to collect $6.5 billion in withdrawal liability because the trustees...more
6/13/2024
/ Article III ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Dismissals ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Pensions ,
Standing ,
Trustees ,
Trusts ,
Unions ,
Withdrawal Liability
In Bulk Transp. v. Teamsters Union No. 142 Pension Fund, No. 23-1563, 2024 WL 1230236 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2024), the Seventh Circuit held that the contributions used to calculate an employer’s withdrawal liability may include...more
In Svenhard’s Swedish Bakery v. United States Bakery, Bk. No. 19-15277, 2023 WL 5541420 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023), the Ninth Circuit held that a settlement agreement that resolved an employer’s withdrawal liability to a...more
In Su v. Fensler, No. 22-cv-01030, 2023 WL 5152640 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2023), the court granted the Department of Labor’s motion for a preliminary injunction to replace with an independent fiduciary the trustees of the United...more
In Holland v. Murray, No. 21-cv-567, 2023 WL 2645708 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2023), the court held that financial support provided by Congress to a multiemployer pension plan under the Bipartisan American Miners Act (“BAMA”) did not...more
In Central States v. Wingra, No. 21-cv-3684, 2023 WL 199360 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2023), the district court held that an employer expelled from a multiemployer pension plan may not owe withdrawal liability because the permanent...more
In Kanefsky v. Ford Motor Co. Gen. Ret. Plan, No. 22-cv-2259, 10548 U.S. Dist. 2023 WL 186800 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2023), the court granted a motion to dismiss a pension plan participant’s claim that the plan was equitably...more
Editor’s Overview -
Of course, on the top of everyone’s minds these days is COVID-19. In this edition of Proskauer’s ERISA Newsletter, our colleagues discuss some of the legislation and guidance that has been issued over...more
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a withdrawal liability decision of which both multiemployer pension plans and their contributing employers should be aware. Specifically, in National Retirement Fund v. Metz...more
In this edition of our Newsletter, we take a look at a pair of cases that, while unrelated, together remind us of the importance of having clear plan rules in place that reflect the plan sponsor’s intention. The first article...more
10/11/2019
/ 401k ,
403(b) Plans ,
Affordable Care Act ,
Benefit Plan Sponsors ,
Breach of Duty ,
Class Action ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Employer Group Health Plans ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Foreign Nationals ,
Hardship Distributions ,
Health Insurance ,
IRS ,
Mental Health Parity Rule ,
Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) ,
Pensions ,
Retirement Plan ,
Safe Harbors ,
Standing ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Withdrawal Liability
The Seventh Circuit held that a multiemployer pension fund’s withdrawal liability claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to claims under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). After...more
The Fifth Circuit concluded that a plan’s three-year contractual limitations period began to accrue when a beneficiary received a letter in 2008 that prominently displayed on the first page the monthly earnings used to...more
A New York federal district court concluded that a defined benefit plan participant lacked standing to seek relief on behalf of plans other than the one in which he was a participant. In this case, plaintiff claimed that...more
The Tenth Circuit upheld a claims administrator’s decision denying a claim for residential mental health treatment as not medically necessary...more
Editor's Overview -
We often talk about the importance of evaluating whether there are any procedural obstacles to plaintiffs pursuing their ERISA claims, particularly in complex, class actions where it may not be...more
4/3/2019
/ Administrative Remedies ,
Article III ,
Breach of Duty ,
Defined Contribution Plans ,
Discovery ,
Electronically Stored Information ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Financial Harm ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
IRS ,
Notice Requirements ,
Standard of Review ,
Standing
The Second Circuit held that plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendant suffered from a “categorical potential conflict of interest”—because it both funded the plan and was the claim’s decision-maker—did not affect the...more
A federal district court in Illinois held that participants in a multiemployer pension plan failed to plausibly allege that plan fiduciaries retaliated against them in violation of ERISA § 510 by refusing to consider their...more
As we closed the door on 2018, we were met by two surprising decisions—one from a panel of the Second Circuit addressing employer stock drop litigation, and one from a federal district court in Texas declaring the entire...more
1/11/2019
/ 403(b) Plans ,
Affordable Care Act ,
Amgen v Harris ,
Breach of Duty ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
FIfth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer ,
Hardship Distributions ,
Health Insurance ,
IRS ,
Plan Administrators ,
Proposed Regulation ,
Section 409A ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Stock Drop Litigation ,
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
The Ninth Circuit unanimously concluded that a trustee and lawyer for certain multiemployer funds violated ERISA § 510 by unlawfully firing a whistleblower in the funds’ collections department, but, in a split decision,...more
12/28/2018
/ Board of Trustees ,
Breach of Duty ,
Criminal Investigations ,
Department of Labor (DOL) ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Retaliation ,
Section 404 ,
Section 510 ,
Unions ,
Whistleblowers