In the aftermath of the rejection of the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan (“Central States”) application to reduce core benefits by Treasury Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, it is critical that contributing employers to multi-employer pension funds recognize the harsh reality that help to those funds will not be forthcoming from the

In a case of first impression, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that work performed by a non-union company acquired after a construction industry employer ceased contributing to a multiemployer pension plan (MEP) triggered withdrawal liability.  The case, Ceco Concrete Construction, LLC v. Centennial State Carpenters Pension Trust,

For the past several months, we have been reporting on the application filed by the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund  (“Central States”) to the Department of Treasury to reduce “core” benefits to participants.    This extraordinary remedy is permitted by the  Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (“Kline-Miller Act”).

Public hearings conducted

We have been monitoring and reporting on several disquieting events which have occurred in the multi-employer pension plan world within the past few months.

In September 2015, the Central States Southeast and Southwest Area Pension Fund availed itself of the relief permitted under the Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (“Kline-Miller Act”) by applying

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (“UFCW”) National Pension Fund (which, according to its website has over 500 contributing employers and over 100,000 active participants) has adopted a new rule effective as of the plan year ending on June 30, 2014 which increases the risk that a participating employer will unknowingly create a

The third multi-employer pension plan since September 2015 has filed an application with the Department of the Treasury in which it is seeking to reduce core benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (“MPRA”). The Teamsters Local 469 Pension Plan (“469 Fund”) which is administered in Hazlet, New Jersey has now joined the

On October 28, 2015, we reported that the Central States Southeast and Southwest Area Pension Fund (“Central States”) — one of the largest multiemployer pension plans in the country — had filed an application with the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) seeking to reduce core benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (“MPRA”)

Since the passage of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“MPPAA”) the financial well-being of employers contributing to multi-employer defined benefit pension plans has been tied to the funding of those plans, many of which have been underfunded for decades. The downward spiral has been exacerbated by several unalterable factors: an increase in

Both buyers and sellers in asset sale transactions should be cognizant of the ongoing erosion of the common law rule that the purchaser is not responsible for the seller’s liabilities absent a contractual assumption of such liabilities, as evidenced by a recent Ninth Circuit case finding that the theory of successor liability may be used

As part of on-going efforts to prevent the collapse of financially troubled multiemployer pension plans, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) and Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) have issued regulatory guidance under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (“MPRA”). Together, the Treasury Proposed and Temporary Regulations, a new Revenue Ruling, and PBGC interim rule