Whenever the corporation determines that a plan which is to be terminated under section 1341 or 1342 of this title, or which is in the process of being terminated under section 1341 or 1342 of this title, should not be terminated under section 1341 or 1342 of this title as a result of such circumstances as the corporation determines to be relevant, the corporation is authorized to cease any activities undertaken to terminate the plan, and to take whatever action is necessary and within its power to restore the plan to its status prior to the determination that the plan was to be terminated under section 1341 or 1342 of this title. In the case of a plan which has been terminated under section 1341 or 1342 of this title the corporation is authorized in any such case in which the corporation determines such action to be appropriate and consistent with its duties under this subchapter, to take such action as may be necessary to restore the plan to its pretermination status, including, but not limited to, the transfer to the employer or a plan administrator of control of part or all of the remaining assets and liabilities of the plan.
Notes of Decisions
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633 (1990).
· cites it 6× “237 , 29 U. S. C. § 1347 , was, as the Court of Appeals concluded, arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law, within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.”
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
· cites it 2× “633, 642-643, 647-648 (1990) (according Chevron deference to the PBGC's interpretation of the requirements for its restoring a terminated plan under § 4047 of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1347 (1988 ed.), which interpretation was reflected in nothing more than the agency's act of…”
Wilmington Shipping Co. v. New England Life Ins., 496 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “§ 1342 (a), it may undo the termination if it determines that the plan participants will be best served by plan restoration, see 29 U.S.C.A. § 1347 (West 1999). In such circumstances, the PBGC may order the statutory trustee to return all or part- of the plan’s assets to the…”
Paulsen v. CNF INC., 559 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2009).
“29 U.S.C. § 1347 . 15 . The Employees’ complaint also seeks relief under section 1132(a)(3) for their fifth claim related to ERISA notification rights, but the *1076 Employees have abandoned this claim by not arguing its merits on appeal.”
Dist. 65, UAW v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 1468 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The District 65 plaintiffs allege also that PBGC should have exercised its power under ERISA § 4047, 29 U.S.C. § 1347 to “cease the termination of the Retirement Plan and restore such Plan to active status.”
Lewis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 314 F. Supp. 3d 135 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
“2668 ("Here, the PBGC has interpreted [ 29 U.S.C. § 1347 ] as giving it the power to base restoration decisions on the existence of follow-on plans.”
Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 193 F. Supp. 2d 209 (D.D.C. 2002).
“In their complaint, the plaintiffs request injunctive relief to prohibit the termination of the plan until ERISA has been satisfied or, if termination has already occurred, as is the case, restoration of the plan in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 1347 . See id. at 2, 6 . In…”
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 2d 909 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
“But the Supreme Court in LTV was reviewing PBGC’s decision restoring a terminated pension plan pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1347 , which is a statute that differs significantly from § 1342.”
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.