U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS › Subtitle Subtitle B— Regulatory Provisions › Part part 2— participation and vesting

29 U.S.C. § 1058

Mergers and consolidations of plans or transfers of plan assets

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

A pension plan may not merge or consolidate with, or transfer its assets or liabilities to, any other plan after September 2, 1974, unless each participant in the plan would (if the plan then terminated) receive a benefit immediately after the merger, consolidation, or transfer which is equal to or greater than the benefit he would have been entitled to receive immediately before the merger, consolidation, or transfer (if the plan had then terminated). The preceding sentence shall not apply to any transaction to the extent that participants either before or after the transaction are covered under a multiemployer plan to which subchapter III of this chapter applies.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Paulsen v. CNF INC., 559 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paulsen v. CNF INC., 559 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 5× “This was done to certify compliance with the requirement of ERISA § 208, 29 U.S.C. § 1058 , that each participant in the spun-off plan would (if the plan then terminated) receive a benefit immediately after the spinoff equal to or greater than the benefit she would have been…”
Shaver v. Siemens Corp., 670 F.3d 462 (3rd Cir. 2012). · cites it 5× “The Magistrate Judge concluded that Siemens violated ERISA sections 208, 29 U.S.C. § 1058 , and 204(g), 29 U.S.C. § 1054 (g), a decision she based on two theories which we address in detail below.”
Sys. Council EM-3 v. AT & T Corp., 972 F. Supp. 21 (D.D.C. 1997). · cites it 10× “In particular, Defendants contend that ERISA section 208, 29 U.S.C. § 1058 , which governs the transfer of plan assets, does not impose fiduciary duties on transferors, but only establishes minimum funding requirements.”
United Steelworkers of Am., Local 2116, Russell Whisman, Darrell Tucker, G.R. Jones, & David Jewell v. Cyclops Corp., 860 F.2d 189 (6th Cir. 1988). · cites it 4× “ERISA sets out the standard for the funding of merged, transferred or acquired pension plans in 29 U.S.C. § 1058 : A pension plan may not merge or consolidate with, or transfer its assets or liabilities to, any other plan after September 2,1974, unless each participant in the…”
Gillis v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 4 F.3d 1137 (3rd Cir. 1993). · cites it 6× “Early Retirement Benefits Plaintiffs argue that Hoechst underfunded the American Mirrex Plan in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1058 , because Hoechst allegedly failed to transfer sufficient assets to fund plaintiffs’ early retirement benefits.”
Bass v. Ret. Plan of Conoco, Inc., 676 F. Supp. 735 (W.D. La. 1988). · cites it 5× “Inadequate Transfer The sixth and final count alleges violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1058 . That section provides, in pertinent part: A pension plan may not .”
Sys. Council Em-3, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Afl-Cio v. At&t Corp., 159 F.3d 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “See 29 U.S.C. § 1058 (1994). Finally, it is clear that appellants’ contract claims are not ripe for review.”
Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2008). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1058 . The district court found that Titan had not properly pled this claim in its third-party complaint against Pirelli and declined to address Titan’s arguments under ERISA.”
In Re Gulf Pension Litig., 764 F. Supp. 1149 (S.D. Tex. 1991). · cites it 3× “G4B006896 and G4B001058) The actuarial certification only addressed the validity of the merger under § 208 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1058 . Before the propriety of a proposed merger under § 208 of ERISA even becomes relevant, the plans must first qualify as a single plan under ERISA.”
Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund, 434 F. Supp. 950 (W.D.N.Y. 1977). · cites it 4× “§ 1201 (a), by not notifying each employee of the Teamsters Fund of the proposed merger, that the merger violates § 208 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1058 , because the benefits to the members of the plaintiffs’ class under the merger are not equal to or greater than the benefits they…”
Kinek v. Gulf & W., Inc., 720 F. Supp. 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). · cites it 5× “§ 1132 (a)(1)(B), (a)(3), and for violátion of § 208 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1058 . Plaintiffs have cross-moved for partial summary judgment as to defendants’ liability, but do not seek summary judgment as to damages.”
Van Orman v. Am. Ins., 608 F. Supp. 13 (D.N.J. 1984). · cites it 3× “§ 1058 , which reads in pertinent part: A pension plan may not merge or consolidate with, or transfer its assets or liabilities to, any other plan after September 2,1974, unless each participant in the plan would (if the plan then terminated) receive a benefit immediately after…”
Show all 62 citing cases →
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.