29 U.S.C. § 1367
Recovery of liability for plan termination
The corporation is authorized to make arrangements with contributing sponsors and members of their controlled groups who are or may become liable under section 1362, 1363, or 1364 of this title for payment of their liability, including arrangements for deferred payment of amounts of liability to the corporation accruing as of the termination date on such terms and for such periods as the corporation deems equitable and appropriate.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 446 U.S. 359 (1980).
Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 446 U.S. 359 (1980). “29 U. S. C. § 1367 . Thus Title IV of ERISA, unlike the statutes invalidated under Due Process or the Contract Clause does have `limitations as to time, amount, circumstances, [and] need.”
Allied Pilots Ass'n v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 334 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1367 (emphasis added). As the bankruptcy court found, the PBGC entered into the CSA pursuant to its section 4067 authority.”
Adams v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 332 F. Supp. 2d 231 (D.D.C. 2004). “Circuit’s express confirmation that the PBGC has general authority under ERISA § 4067, 29 U.S.C. § 1367 to enter into liability settlements.”
T.F. v. Fox Chapel Area Sch. Dist., 589 F. App'x 594 (3d Cir. 2014). “The District Court had supplemental jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania state-law claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1367 . We have jurisdiction over this appeal from a final order of the District Court under 28 U.”
Ass'n of Flight Attendants-CWA v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2005). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1367 *99 (emphasis added). Pursuant to § 1362, upon termination of the FA Plan, United would become liable, inter alia, for “the total amount of the unfunded benefit liabilities 29 U.”
Aguirre v. Albertson's, Inc., 117 P.3d 1012 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “See 29 USC § 1367 (a) (providing for federal question jurisdiction).”
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc. (In re Cont'l Airlines), 138 B.R. 442 (D. Del. 1992). “29 U.S.C. § 1367 . This question bears a close relationship to ERISA’s statutory scheme, yet again the Court has been presented with no reason to consider this issue.”
Brindley v. Target Corp., 761 F. Supp. 2d 801 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “§§ 621-624 ) and annexing claims under the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA,” 775 ILCS 5/2-101 to 2-104) pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). This opinion ad *803 dresses Target’s partial motion to dismiss Brindley’s Complaint under the…”
Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 592 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1979). “29 U.S.C. § 1367 . Thus Title IV of ERISA, unlike the statutes invalidated under Due Process or the Contract Clause does have “limitations as to time, amount, circumstances, [and] need.”
Anoka Orthopaedic Assocs., P.A. v. Mutschler, 773 F. Supp. 158 (D. Minn. 1991). “29 U.S.C. § 1367 . The statute does not apply to the present case because plaintiffs brought suit on July 7, 1986.”
Krause v. Cherry Hill Fire Dist. 13, 969 F. Supp. 270 (D.N.J. 1997). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1367 (e)(2). In this case, plaintiffs’ multifaceted state law claims clearly “predominate” over the relatively narrow FLSA minimum wage claim, in that the state law claims involve challenges to the authority and propriety of several decisions taken by the governing…”
Mote v. Aetna Life Ins., 435 F. Supp. 2d 827 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “13(a) and 29 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) as jurisdictional sources, that new pleading carries forward the same fatal flaw as the FACc, and it too is dismissed.”
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.