29 U.S.C. § 1382

Determination and collection of liability; notification of employer

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

When an employer withdraws from a multiemployer plan, the plan sponsor, in accordance with this part, shall—(1) determine the amount of the employer’s withdrawal liability,(2) notify the employer of the amount of the withdrawal liability, and(3) collect the amount of the withdrawal liability from the employer.(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, § 4202, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, § 104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1218.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 206 cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · 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). · cites it 3× “In accordance with its statutory obligations as set forth in §§ 4202(2) and 4219(b)(1) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1382 (2) and 1399(b)(1), on September 9, 2015, Plaintiff sent D & A a Notice and Demand for payment of withdrawal liability via certified mail.”

Findlay Truck Line, Inc. v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 726 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1382 , 1399(b)(1). A second key principle of the MPPAA is that even if an employer disputes the withdrawal liability payments, the employer must make payments to the fund no later than 60 days after the fund demands such payments, and must continue to make *742 them…”

Mcdougall v. Pioneer Ranch Ltd. P'ship, 494 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “81 worth of withdrawal liability pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1382 (2) and 1399(b). On August 23, 2005, the Fund issued another notice and demand to the Whiting Controlled Group that was served on Pioneer Ranch and Robert Whiting.”

Elbeco Inc. v. Nat'l Ret. Fund, 128 F. Supp. 3d 849 (E.D. Pa. 2015). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1382 (2), 1382(3), 1399(b)(1)(B) (1982).”

Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Health & Welfare Fund, Loran W. Robbins, Marion M. Winstead v. Cullum Companies, Inc., 973 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1382 , 1391. To collect the withdrawal liability, the plan must send the employer a notice and demand for payment.”

Bd. of Trs. of the Dist. No. 15 MacHinists Pension Fund v. Kahle Eng'g Corp., a New Jersey Corp., 43 F.3d 852 (3rd Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1382 , 1399(b)(1). The plan sponsor must set up a schedule for withdrawal payments which may impose liability to a maximum of twenty years.”

SUPERVALU, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Sw. Pennsylvania & W. Maryland Area Teamsters & Employers Pension Fund, 500 F.3d 334 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1382 , 1391. Section 4211 provides that the amount of an employer’s withdrawal liability is the employer’s proportionate share of the unfunded vested benefits existing at the end of the plan year preceding the plan year in which the employer withdraws.”

Serv. Employees Int'l Union Nat'l Indus. Pension Fund v. Liberty House Nursing Home of Jersey City, Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “The Pension Fund’s Assessment of Withdrawal Liability On June 30, 2015, the Pension Fund sent a notice and demand for payment to Defendant based on its determination that Defendant had completely withdrawn from the plan as of February 28, 2015, thereby triggering withdrawal…”

Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. t.i.m.e.-dc, Inc., 826 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1382 , 1399(b)(1). “On timely request, the plan sponsor is obliged to review and explain any aspect of the withdrawal liability determination questioned by the employer.”

NY State Teamsters v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, 24 F.4th 163 (2d Cir. 2022). “Evade-or-Avoid Liability The Fund argues that C&S acted intentionally to “evade or avoid” withdrawal liability by structuring its 2008 acquisition of Penn Traffic’s distribution business in such a way as to never assume control of the Syracuse warehouse or its employees.”

Pittsburgh MacK Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 66, 580 F.3d 185 (3rd Cir. 2009). “3d at 337 (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 1382 , 1391). Under 29 U.S.C.”

Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union (Indep.) Pension Fund & Paul Glover v. Louis Zahn Drug Co., 890 F.2d 1405 (7th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “On April 15, 1985, the Fund notified Zahn that the cessation of its trucking operations constituted a complete withdrawal from the Fund for which Zahn had incurred “withdrawal liability” of $428,000 under 29 U.S.C. § 1382 . 3 Zahn invoked its right under 29 U.”

Show all 206 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.