Cluster 578176

The demand must come within a 60-day period commencing at the earlier of two dates: (1) the date the plan responds to the employer’s request for review of the withdrawal liability determination; and (2) the date that is 120 days after the employer’s request for review. 29 U.S.C. § 1401 (a)(1); see Slotky, 956 F.2d at 1371-72 (“[The employer] must initiate arbitration … within 60 days after the earlier of either the plan’s response to the employer’s initial complaint, or 120 …

Slotky, 956 F.2d at 1374 (“the use of a controlled nominee to screen assets from creditors is just the sort of device at which the controlled group provision is aimed”); Messina, 706 F.3d at 882 (“the likelihood that a true purpose and effect of the ‘lease’ is to split up the withdrawing employer's assets is self-evident”).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1372 (7th Cir. 1992) (“fail[ure] to request arbitration” means “the amount of withdrawal liability assessed by the plan becomes due and owing and the plan can . . . sue to collect it”).

See White, 258 F.3d at 640 n. 3; see also Fulkerson, 238 F.3d at 896 (“Given the prevalence of investing, permitting the holding of investments ... without more to be considered regular and continuous activity would eviscerate the limitations placed in the text of § 1301(b)(1).”); Slotky, 956 F.2d at 1374 (“[T]he purpose of limiting controlled group membership to persons engaged in trades or businesses is to protect the owners of corporations from having to dig into their po…

See Slotky, 956 F.2d at 1374 (“the purpose of limiting controlled group membership to persons engaged in trades or businesses is to protect the owners of corporations from having to dig into their pockets to make good the withdrawal liability of their corporations.”); Fulkerson, 238 F.3d at 896 (“[g]iven the prevalence of investing, permitting the holding of investments ... without more to be considered regular and continuous activity would eviscerate the limitations placed …

See Slotky, 956 F.2d at 1374 ("the purpose of limiting controlled group membership to persons engaged in trades or businesses is to protect the owners of corporations from having to dig into their pockets to make good the withdrawal liability of their corporations."); Fulkerson, 238 F.3d at 896 ("[g]iven the prevalence of investing, permitting the holding of investments . . . without more to be considered regular and continuous activity would eviscerate the limitations place…

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1376 (7th Cir. 1992) (noting that, even if an ERISA demand letter violated a bankruptcy stay, the consequence would be that “that the pension plan could not proceed against [the employer] unless the bankruptcy judge lifted the stay”).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1371 (7th Cir. 1992).

Area Pension Funds v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1371 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1374 (7th Cir. 1992) (explaining that such control group membership is limited to “persons engaged in trades or businesses” to “protect the owners of the corporation from having to dig into their pockets to make good the withdrawal liability of their corporations”).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1374 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1377 (7th Cir. 1992)).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1376 (7th Cir. 1992) (recognizing that the statutory deadline for initiating arbitration is a form of statute of limitations and the doctrine of equitable tolling is read into such a statute, but declining to find that the facts warranted application of equitable tolling or the creation of an exception to withdrawal liability).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1372 (7th Cir. 1992)).

Areas Pension 21 Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1371-72 (7th Cir. 1992); see also 29 U.S.C. § 1399 (b). 22 No later than 90 days after the plan assesses the liability, “the employer [] (i) may ask the plan sponsor to review any specific 23 matter relating to the determination of the employer’s liability and the schedule of payments, (ii) may identify any inaccuracy in the 24 determination of the amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to the employer, and (iii) may furn…

See Northwest Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d 253 , 257 (9th Cir. 1996); Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1377 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1375 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1377 (7th Cir. 1992) (explaining that given § 1451 expressly assimilates failures to satisfy withdrawal liability to violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1145 , the award of additional amounts are mandatory).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1377 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1375 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1374 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1376 (7th Cir. 1992) (suggesting that a stay “violation might of course expose the violator to contempt proceedings, as with any other violation of a judicial order.”).

This application of the clear error standard originated with Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373 (7th Cir. 1992), and is unique to our circuit.

This approach is based on the underlying purpose of the MPPAA, which is. to “prevent the dissipation of assets required to secure vested pension benefits.” Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1374 (7th Cir.1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1371 (7th Cir.1992) (withdrawal liability ensures “that the financial burden of [a withdrawing company] ... will not be shifted to the other employers in the plan”).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1377 (7th Cir.1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1371 (7th Cir.1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1377 (7th Cir.1992) (noting plaintiffs in a withdrawal liability action are entitled to interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees because section 1451 assimilates section 1145).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373 (7th Cir.1992); see also McDougall v. Pioneer Ranch Ltd.

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373-74 (7th Cir.1992); Cent.

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373-74 (7th Cir.1992).

(R. 38, Pis.’ Reply at 9.) In Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1374 (7th Cir.1992), the Seventh Circuit held that although the question of whether or not an enterprise is a trade or business is not ordinarily resolved on summary judgment, delaying judgment does not “make much sense in a case in which the only ‘factual’ issue is one of characterization ... and the opponent of summary judgment claims no right to a jury trial.…

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). . 29 U.S.C. § 1399 (b)(1) provides: (1) As soon as practicable after an employer’s complete or partial withdrawal, the plan sponsor shall— (A) notify the employer of — • (i) the amount of the liability, and (ii) the schedule for liability payments, and (B) demand payment in accordance with the schedule. .

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1374 (7th Cir.1992).

See Bowers on Behalf of NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 901 F.2d 258, 264 (2d Cir.1990) (equitable tolling applies); Doherty v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 16 F.3d 1386, 1393 (3d Cir.1994) (equitable tolling applies); Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotley, 956 F.2d 1369, 1376-1377 (7th Cir.1992) (equitable tolling applies); McDonald v. Centra, Inc., 946 F.2d 1059, 1065 (4th Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, 504 U…

In evaluating whether an enterprise meets the Groetzinger test, we are mindful of the purpose of the MPPAA, which is to “prevent the dissipation of assets required to secure vested pension benefits.” Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1374 (7th Cir.1992); see also Ditello, 974 F.2d at 890 .

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373 (7th Cir.1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1377 (7th Cir.1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1372 (7th Cir.1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1374 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that where the factual issues involve characterization, and the opponent of summary judgment has no right to a jury trial, a formally “factual” issue may be resolved on summary judgment).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373 (7th Cir.1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1371 (7th Cir. 1992).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1371 (7th Cir.1992).

However, in Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373-74 (7th Cir. 1992), this Court held that the clearly erroneous standard of 6 No. 06-3757 review applies when the only issue before the district court is the characterization of undisputed subsidiary facts and where a party does not have the right to a jury trial.

However, in Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373-74 (7th Cir.1992), this Court held that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies when the only issue before the district court is the characterization of undisputed subsidiary facts and where a party does not have the right to a jury trial.

The Slotky court held that it was appropriate to resolve factual disputes on summary judgment when “the only ‘factual’ issue is one of characterization, that is, of application of undisputed lay facts, and the opponent of summary judgment claims no right to a jury trial.” Slotky, 956 F.2d at 1374 (emphasis in original).

Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1376-77 (7th Cir.1992) (finding that employer was not entitled to equitable tolling where he failed to display due diligence by waiting until he was sued in plan’s collection action to raise objections “having till then emitted nary a peep to suggest that he was contesting the assessment of withdrawal liability”).

States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1371 (7th Cir.1992). 3 .The plaintiff trust fund also moved for summary judgment against defendant Tri-Valley Glass Co., Inc. ("Tri-Valley Glass”).