Section 104(b)(4) of ERISA provides that a plan administrator must respond to a written request for certain documents (including the plan documents and summary plan description) by a participant or beneficiary by providing the requested documents. Section 502(c)(1) of ERISA and Regulation § 2575.502(c)-1 provide that a plan administrator who fails to do so within
Court Finds Union’s Withdrawal Liability Indemnification Obligation of Limited Duration
Congress enacted the withdrawal liability provisions of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) with the ultimate goal of protecting participants and beneficiaries entitled to benefits from multiemployer pension plans. Congress observed that such plans are financially burdened whenever an employer withdraws and permanently ceases to pay contributions and decided that the burden should be
Making the Loss of the SALT Deduction Sting a Little Less
As tax time rapidly approaches, taxpayers in states with high state and local income taxes (such as New York) are about to learn, up close and personal, just how much the loss of the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) will affect their personal tax liability. A little-publicized provision of the New York Tax
Segal Blend Litigation, Part Two: New Jersey District Court Holds That Use of Segal Blend Did Not Violate MPPAA
As our earlier article reported, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had recently held that a multiemployer pension fund’s use of the “Segal Blend” to calculate a withdrawn employer’s withdrawal liability violated the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), as amended by
CONGRESS AGAIN ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS MULTIEMPLOYER PLAN CRISIS IN BIPARTISAN BUDGET ACT
Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (“MPPAA”), an employer that has assumed an obligation to contribute to collectively-bargained and jointly-administered defined benefit pension plans ( “multiemployer plans”) is liable for its allocable share of any underfunding upon the permanent cessation of that obligation. This
Separation Agreement Drafting Error Corrected by Michigan Appeals Court
A Michigan appellate court denied an attempt by an employee to receive a severance jackpot based on a drafting mistake made by his former employer. Notwithstanding the employee’s entitlement, based on the terms of his separation agreement, to receive approximately $81 thousand dollars per week for 34 weeks, the State of Michigan Court of Appeals
Arbitrator Slashes Annual Withdrawal Liability Payments in Underfunded Multiemployer Pension Plan Dispute
Employers who cease contributing to an ERISA multiemployer pension plan are liable for their allocable share of any underfunding, or “withdrawal liability.”
For a variety of reasons, withdrawal liability has become both prevalent and significant. Indeed, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the federal agency tasked with the enforcement and regulation of the withdrawal liability rules)
Tenth Circuit Expands Withdrawal Liability of Construction Industry Employer
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,
Asset Purchasers Face Increased Exposure for the Multiemployer Pension Debts of Sellers
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
401(k) Plan Investment Committee Best Practices After Tibble v. Edison
On May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that an ERISA fiduciary responsible for the selection of ERISA plan investment choices has an ongoing duty to monitor such choices.
As discussed in greater detail in our May 18th Benefits Law Advisor post, Tibble v. Edison International, No. 13-550