U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— PLAN TERMINATION INSURANCE › Subtitle Subtitle E— Special Provisions for Multiemployer Plans › Part part 1— employer withdrawals

29 U.S.C. § 1386

Adjustment for partial withdrawal; determination of amount; reduction for partial withdrawal liability; procedures applicable

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The amount of an employer’s liability for a partial withdrawal, before the application of sections 1399(c)(1) and 1405 of this title, is equal to the product of—(1) the amount determined under section 1391 of this title, and adjusted under section 1389 of this title if appropriate, determined as if the employer had withdrawn from the plan in a complete withdrawal—(A) on the date of the partial withdrawal, or(B) in the case of a partial withdrawal described in section 1385(a)(1) of this title (relating to 70-percent contribution decline), on the last day of the first plan year in the 3-year testing period,multiplied by(2) a fraction which is 1 minus a fraction—(A) the numerator of which is the employer’s contribution base units for the plan year following the plan year in which the partial withdrawal occurs, and(B) the denominator of which is the average of the employer’s contribution base units for—(i) except as provided in clause (ii), the 5 plan years immediately preceding the plan year in which the partial withdrawal occurs, or(ii) in the case of a partial withdrawal described in section 1385(a)(1) of this title (relating to 70-percent contribution decline), the 5 plan years immediately preceding the beginning of the 3-year testing period.(b)(1) In the case of an employer that has withdrawal liability for a partial withdrawal from a plan, any withdrawal liability of that employer for a partial or complete withdrawal from that plan in a subsequent plan year shall be reduced by the amount of any partial withdrawal liability (reduced by any abatement or reduction of such liability) of the employer with respect to the plan for a previous plan year.(2) The corporation shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to provide for proper adjustments in the reduction provided by paragraph (1) for—(A) changes in unfunded vested benefits arising after the close of the prior year for which partial withdrawal liability was determined,(B) changes in contribution base units occurring after the close of the prior year for which partial withdrawal liability was determined, and(C) any other factors for which it determines adjustment to be appropriate,so that the liability for any complete or partial withdrawal in any subsequent year (after the application of the reduction) properly reflects the employer’s share of liability with respect to the plan.(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, § 4206, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, § 104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1222.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: N.Y. Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers'-Publishers' Pension Fund
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
N.Y. Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers'-Publishers' Pension Fund (2018) ilsd · cites it 14× “" 29 U.S.C. § 1386 (b)(2). The PBGC obliged, creating a credit applicable to subsequent withdrawal liability based on payments already made, such that the "credit phases out over time, thereby roughly capturing the change in the composition of the liability pool and allocating…”
Gciu-Employer Retirement Fund v. quad/graphics, Inc. (2018) ca9 · cites it 5× “Affirming, the panel held that the plan correctly applied a credit for a prior partial withdrawal under 29 U.S.C. § 1386 (b) against the employer’s complete withdrawal before calculating the twenty-year limitation on annual payments provided for in 29 U.”
Robbins v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. (1986) ilnd · cites it 4× “For instance, Pepsi argues that the Fund failed to account for withdrawal liability payments for preceding years, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1386 (b), 10 and the Fund improperly increased its unfunded vested liability through increasing benefit levels at a time when it was…”
GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Quad/Graphics, Inc. (2017) cacd · cites it 4× “Issue 3: Application of the Partial Withdrawal Credit In assessing Quad’s 2011 complete withdrawal liability, the Fund applied two adjustments: the partial withdrawal credit, 29 U.S.C. § 1386 (b)(1), and the 20-year payment cap, 29 U.”
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, and Howard McDougall Trustee v. Safeway, Inc., Cross-Appelle (2000) ca7 · cites it 4× “See 29 U.S.C. § 1386 (b)(1). In Safeway’s case, that would mean that it would receive a full credit against its 1993 liability for the $12.”
Nestle Holdings, Inc. And Nestle Transportation Company v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (2003) ca7 “It was these hauls which were conveyed to the non-Fund employee drivers, and thus work was transferred to another location pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1386 (b)(2)(A)®. Nestle could have taken several steps to reduce their *807 liability under the statute.”
Dorn's Transportation, Inc. v. I.A.M. National Pension Fund (1984) dcd “partially withdrew from the fund ( 29 U.S.C. § 1386 ). These new provisions encourage contribution to funds by smaller employers, and by those who seek to enter or remain in industries upon great risk of failure or speculation of success.”
In Re United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. (1994) deb “29 U.S.C. §§ 1386 (a)(2), 1391(b)(3)(B). The plan sponsor notifies the withdrawn employer of the amount owed, devises a schedule for payment, and demands payment according to the schedule.”
Walter v. International Ass'n of Machinists Pension Fund (1991) ca10 “See ERISA § 4206, 29 U.S.C. § 1386 (a); 29 U.S.C. § 1415 ; I.”
Consumers Concrete Corp. v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (2025) ilnd · cites it 12× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1386 ; see also United States v.”
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Consumers Concrete Corp. (2025) ilnd · cites it 12× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1386 ; see also United States v.”
Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Manning Motor Express, Inc. (2000) ilnd · cites it 2× “Manning asserts that the law is clear and that plaintiffs’ refusal to grant a credit is groundless. Plaintiffs, however, offer three justifications for them decision: the original assessment is uncollectible; the original assessment is still in arbitration; and any credit…”
Show all 24 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.