U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS › Subtitle Subtitle A— General Provisions

29 U.S.C. § 1001b

Findings and declaration of policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) FindingsThe Congress finds that—(1) single-employer defined benefit pension plans have a substantial impact on interstate commerce and are affected with a national interest;(2) the continued well-being and retirement income security of millions of workers, retirees, and their dependents are directly affected by such plans;(3) the existence of a sound termination insurance system is fundamental to the retirement income security of participants and beneficiaries of such plans; and(4) the current termination insurance system in some instances encourages employers to terminate pension plans, evade their obligations to pay benefits, and shift unfunded pension liabilities onto the termination insurance system and the other premium-payers.(b) Additional findingsThe Congress further finds that modification of the current termination insurance system and an increase in the insurance premium for single-employer defined benefit pension plans—(1) is desirable to increase the likelihood that full benefits will be paid to participants and beneficiaries of such plans;(2) is desirable to provide for the transfer of liabilities to the termination insurance system only in cases of severe hardship;(3) is necessary to maintain the premium costs of such system at a reasonable level; and(4) is necessary to finance properly current funding deficiencies and future obligations of the single-employer pension plan termination insurance system.(c) Declaration of policyIt is hereby declared to be the policy of this title—(1) to foster and facilitate interstate commerce;(2) to encourage the maintenance and growth of single-employer defined benefit pension plans;(3) to increase the likelihood that participants and beneficiaries under single-employer defined benefit pension plans will receive their full benefits;(4) to provide for the transfer of unfunded pension liabilities onto the single-employer pension plan termination insurance system only in cases of severe hardship;(5) to maintain the premium costs of such system at a reasonable level; and(6) to assure the prudent financing of current funding deficiencies and future obligations of the single-employer pension plan termination insurance system by increasing termination insurance premiums.(Pub. L. 99–272, title XI, § 11002, Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 237.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This title, referred to in subsec. (c), is title XI of Pub. L. 99–272, Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 237, known as the Single-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1986. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Single-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1986, and not as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1986, with certain exceptions, see section 11019 of Pub. L. 99–272, set out as an Effective Date of 1986 Amendment note under section 1341 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: Frank Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l Afl-Cio, Taca Airlines, S.A. & Charles J. Huttinger, 901 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frank Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l Afl-Cio, Taca Airlines, S.A. & Charles J. Huttinger, 901 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “237 (1986), Congress declared that the policy of the legislation was "to increase the likelihood that participants and beneficiaries under single-employer defined benefit pension plans will receive their full benefits.”
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.), 87 B.R. 779 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). · cites it 3× “29 U.S.C. § 1001b(a)(4). Congress, therefore, amended Title IV so that an employer could proceed by way of a “standard termination” only if the plan contained sufficient assets to pay all “benefit commitments,” defined to include not only those amounts guaranteed by the PBGC,…”
Rex T. KEARNEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stand. Ins. Co., Defendant-Appellee, 175 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 1999). “Instead of de novo review testing whether the individual was entitled to benefits based on the evidence before the administrator and such other evidence as might be admissible under the restrictive rule of Mongeluzo, “review” would be converted into a trial de novo based on…”
EFS, Inc. v. Regions Bank (McLemore), 682 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c). It is not to protect a depository bank from general state laws concerning malfeasance in connection with the bank’s handling of the bank accounts of participants.”
Marianne Locher v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., Katten Muchin & Zavis, 389 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2004). “948 (internal quotation marks omitted), and “to maintain the premium costs of [an ERISA] system at a reasonable level,” 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(5). The Supreme Court has emphasized both “the public interest in encouraging the formation of employee benefit plans” and “the need for…”
Bonnie Cicio, Individually & as Adm'x of the Est. of Carmine Cicio v. John Does 1-8, Vytra Healthcare, & Brent Spears, M.D., 321 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2003). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(b)(l). State medical malpractice law, by contrast, even if implicated by the execution of a benefits decision, involves the application of duties of conduct that are de *100 fined independent of ERISA plans.”
Ret. Plan of the Unite Here Nat'l Ret. Fund v. Kombassan Holding A.S., 629 F.3d 282 (2d Cir. 2010). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1001b. One aim is to provide for a “sound termination insurance system” that ensures participants and beneficiaries will receive their full benefits even if, for example, their employer ceases operations.”
In re the Marriage of Drexler, 315 P.3d 179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “2009) (statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review).”
Alexander v. Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts Long Term Disability Coverage, 497 F. Supp. 2d 429 (E.D.N.Y 2007). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c). Equity thus dictates that plaintiff be repaid with interest.”
Ass'n of Flight Attendants-CWA v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 2× “This “contract bar” provision was added in 1986 as part of a Congressional effort to address the preexisting “termination insurance system [which] in some instances encourages employers to terminate pension plans, evade their obligations to pay benefits, and shift unfunded…”
Waggener v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “3d at 1094 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(3), (5)). The Supreme Court has stressed both “the public interest in encouraging the formation of employee benefit plans” and “the need for prompt and fair claims settlement procedures.”
Klund v. High Tech. Solutions, Inc., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (S.D. Cal. 2005). “1999) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(3), (5)). In order to balance appropriately these competing goals, discovery cannot be as broad and overreaching in ERISA cases as in other types of litigation.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(a)(2) — 1 case
Boggs v. Boggs, 89 F.3d 1169 (5th Cir. 1996).
— 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(a)(4) — 2 cases
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.), 87 B.R. 779 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “29 U.S.C. § 1001b(a)(4). Congress, therefore, amended Title IV so that an employer could proceed by way of a “standard termination” only if the plan contained sufficient assets to pay all “benefit commitments,” defined to include not only those amounts guaranteed by the PBGC,…”
Ass'n of Flight Attendants-CWA v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2005). “This “contract bar” provision was added in 1986 as part of a Congressional effort to address the preexisting “termination insurance system [which] in some instances encourages employers to terminate pension plans, evade their obligations to pay benefits, and shift unfunded…”
— 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(a)(l) — 1 case
Wallin v. Minnesota Dep't of Corr., 974 F. Supp. 1234 (D. Minnesota 1997).
— 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(b) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Drexler, 315 P.3d 179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “2009) (statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review).”
— 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(b)(l) — 1 case
Bonnie Cicio, Individually & as Adm'x of the Est. of Carmine Cicio v. John Does 1-8, Vytra Healthcare, & Brent Spears, M.D., 321 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2003). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(b)(l). State medical malpractice law, by contrast, even if implicated by the execution of a benefits decision, involves the application of duties of conduct that are de *100 fined independent of ERISA plans.”
— 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c) — 3 cases
EFS, Inc. v. Regions Bank (McLemore), 682 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2012). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c). It is not to protect a depository bank from general state laws concerning malfeasance in connection with the bank’s handling of the bank accounts of participants.”
Alexander v. Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts Long Term Disability Coverage, 497 F. Supp. 2d 429 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c). Equity thus dictates that plaintiff be repaid with interest.”
Howard v. Indiana Michigan Power Co., 812 F. Supp. 135 (S.D. Ind. 1992).
— 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(3) — 13 cases
Rex T. KEARNEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stand. Ins. Co., Defendant-Appellee, 175 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 1999). “Instead of de novo review testing whether the individual was entitled to benefits based on the evidence before the administrator and such other evidence as might be admissible under the restrictive rule of Mongeluzo, “review” would be converted into a trial de novo based on…”
Frank Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l Afl-Cio, Taca Airlines, S.A. & Charles J. Huttinger, 901 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1990). “237 (1986), Congress declared that the policy of the legislation was "to increase the likelihood that participants and beneficiaries under single-employer defined benefit pension plans will receive their full benefits.”
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.), 87 B.R. 779 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “29 U.S.C. § 1001b(a)(4). Congress, therefore, amended Title IV so that an employer could proceed by way of a “standard termination” only if the plan contained sufficient assets to pay all “benefit commitments,” defined to include not only those amounts guaranteed by the PBGC,…”
Waggener v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “3d at 1094 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(3), (5)). The Supreme Court has stressed both “the public interest in encouraging the formation of employee benefit plans” and “the need for prompt and fair claims settlement procedures.”
Klund v. High Tech. Solutions, Inc., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (S.D. Cal. 2005). “1999) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(3), (5)). In order to balance appropriately these competing goals, discovery cannot be as broad and overreaching in ERISA cases as in other types of litigation.”
— 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(4) — 3 cases
Frank Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l Afl-Cio, Taca Airlines, S.A. & Charles J. Huttinger, 901 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1990). “237 (1986), Congress declared that the policy of the legislation was "to increase the likelihood that participants and beneficiaries under single-employer defined benefit pension plans will receive their full benefits.”
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.), 87 B.R. 779 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “29 U.S.C. § 1001b(a)(4). Congress, therefore, amended Title IV so that an employer could proceed by way of a “standard termination” only if the plan contained sufficient assets to pay all “benefit commitments,” defined to include not only those amounts guaranteed by the PBGC,…”
Kinek v. Paramount Commc'ns, Inc., 22 F.3d 503 (2d Cir. 1994).
— 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(5) — 2 cases
Marianne Locher v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., Katten Muchin & Zavis, 389 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2004). “948 (internal quotation marks omitted), and “to maintain the premium costs of [an ERISA] system at a reasonable level,” 29 U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(5). The Supreme Court has emphasized both “the public interest in encouraging the formation of employee benefit plans” and “the need for…”
Garrett v. Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y 2021).
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.