29 C.F.R. § 4219.33

Plan rules concerning overdue and defaulted withdrawal liability

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Plans may adopt rules relating to overdue and defaulted withdrawal liability, provided that those rules are consistent with ERISA. These rules may include, but are not limited to, rules for determining the rate of interest to be charged on overdue, defaulted and overpaid withdrawal liability (provided that the rate reflects prevailing market rates for comparable obligations); rules providing reasonable grace periods during which late payments may be made without interest; additional definitions of default which indicate a substantial likelihood that an employer will be unable to pay its withdrawal liability; and rules pertaining to acceleration of the outstanding balance on default. Plan rules adopted under this section shall be reasonable. Plan rules shall operate and be applied uniformly with respect to each employer, except that the rules may take into account the creditworthiness of an employer. Rules which take into account the creditworthiness of an employer shall state with particularity the categories of creditworthiness the plan will use, the specific differences in treatment accorded employers in different categories, and the standards and procedures for assigning an employer to a category.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union—New York Employees Pension Fund v. D & A Bus Co., 270 F. Supp. 3d 593 (E.D.N.Y 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union—New York Employees Pension Fund v. D & A Bus Co., 270 F. Supp. 3d 593 (E.D.N.Y 2017). “21, 2006); see also 29 C.F.R. § 4219.33 (permitting plan to adopt additional rules “pertaining to acceleration of the outstanding balance on default”).”

N.Y. Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers'-Publishers' Pension Fund, 303 F. Supp. 3d 236 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “14 For a plan to establish an applicable withdrawal liability rate, it needed to be pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 4219.33 . See 29 C.F.R. § 4219.”

Bd. of Trs. of Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.-Pension Fund v. Kero Leasing Corp., 377 F.3d 288 (3rd Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “essentially equivalent to the prevailing We will also AFFIRM the judgment of the market rate for short-term commercial District Court to the extent that it orders loans, or the rate specified by the plan the Fund to reimburse Holmes in the itself pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 4219.33…”

Steelworkers Pension Trust v. The Renco Grp., Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2019). · cites it 5× “32 (b)5 applied to the allegedly overdue withdrawal liability, the Arbitrator stated that his ruling was “subject to potential revision in a subsequent ruling if it is proven that there is a higher rate that should have been applied pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 4219.33 .”6 (Compl.…”

Van Sant v. Nu-Way Printing & Envelope Co. (D. Or. 2020). “Nu-Way cited 29 C.F.R. § 4219.33 and argued that any rules adopted by pension plans must be reasonable and must operate and be applied uniformly to all employers in the plan and that the First Amendment did not comply with this requirement and thus was unenforceable.”

Pennsylvania Heavy & High. Contractors Pension Fund v. Valley Seeding Co., Inc. (M.D. Penn. 2024). “§1399(c)(5)(A) and 29 C.F.R. §4219.33 ; plus accrued pre-judgment interest pursuant to Sections 4301(b), 515, and 502(g) of ERISA, 29 U.”

Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Plan (N.D. Ill. 2025). “2018) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 4219.33 ). While this case does not involve cold calculations—as most § 1394 cases do—the Court is persuaded by the Fund’s argument that all employers, whether they are single-unit or multi-unit employers, are subject to the same provision—that is,…”

Restrepo v. Inline Cable Corp. (E.D.N.Y 2025). “§ 1399 (c)(6) and 29 C.F.R. § 4219.33 , the Pension Fund is entitled to assess interest on delinquent withdrawal liability and to adopt rules for determining the applicable interest rate.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.