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. § 1392

Obligation to contribute

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) “Obligation to contribute” definedFor purposes of this part, the term “obligation to contribute” means an obligation to contribute arising—(1) under one or more collective bargaining (or related) agreements, or(2) as a result of a duty under applicable labor-management relations law, butdoes not include an obligation to pay withdrawal liability under this section or to pay delinquent contributions.(b) Payments of withdrawal liability not considered contributions

Payments of withdrawal liability under this part shall not be considered contributions for purposes of this part.

(c) Transactions to evade or avoid liability

If a principal purpose of any transaction is to evade or avoid liability under this part, this part shall be applied (and liability shall be determined and collected) without regard to such transaction.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, § 4212, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, § 104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1233.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 167 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Div. 1181 A.T.U.-n.Y. Emps. Pension Fund v. City of N.Y., 910 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Div. 1181 A.T.U.-n.Y. Emps. Pension Fund v. City of N.Y., 910 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 14× “App'x 20-21 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1392 (a) ). Explaining that it had overlooked a provision in the NLRA excluding "any State or political subdivision thereof" from the definition of "employer," Sp.”
NY State Teamsters v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, 24 F.4th 163 (2d Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “On April 8, 2016, the Fund filed an amended complaint alleging theories of C&S’s liability in four counts: (1) C&S was subject to the withdrawal liability as the “successor” to Penn Traffic (“successor liability”); (2) C&S had intentionally avoided the withdrawal liability,…”
Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, 724 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “See 29 U.S.C. § 1392 (c); Sun Capital, 903 F.”
N.Y. Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers'-Publishers' Pension Fund, 303 F. Supp. 3d 236 (S.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 5× “" 29 U.S.C. § 1392 (a). The Fund initially calculated the 2013 partial withdrawal liability as $0, but revised its calculations in December 2014 following receipt of final figures.”
Hop Energy, L.L.C. v. Local 553 Pension Fund, 678 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “" 29 U.S.C. § 1392 (a). It defines a "contribution base unit" as "a unit with respect to which an employer has an obligation to contribute under a multiemployer plan.”
Bd. of Trs. of the IBT Local 863 Pension Fund v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 802 F.3d 534 (3rd Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “” In 2006, Congress amended ERISA again. It enacted the PPA “to protect and restore multiemployer pension plans in danger of being unable to meet their pension distribution obligations in the near future.”
Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1392 (c). This discourages companies from using corporate forms and manipulations to shield themselves from withdrawal liability.”
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 3× “The Fund claims that the District Court improperly concluded that SUPER-VALU did not violate § 4212(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1392 (c). We agree. For the reasons that follow, we will reverse the District Court’s judgment and remand…”
Bd. of Trs., Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund v. Illinois Range, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 498 (N.D. Ill. 1999). · cites it 7× “” Individual Defendants argue that Count II should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.”
Lopresti v. Pace Press, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 5× “The plaintiff now brings this action asserting that it is entitled to recover from the defendants the withdrawal liability it is owed because a principal purpose of the sale transaction was to evade or avoid withdrawal liability within the meaning of section 4212(c) of ERISA, 29…”
Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Int'l Comfort Prods., LLC, 585 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “Title 29 U.S.C. § 1392 (a) provides: (a) "Obligation to contribute" defined For purposes of this part, the term "obligation to contribute" means an obligation to contribute arising— (1) under one or more collective bargaining (or related) agreements, or (2) as a result of a duty…”
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 3× “4 The *1408 Fund’s trustees concluded that Zahn’s transaction with Nuelson did not constitute a “sale of assets”; instead, the trustees concluded that the “principal purpose” of the transaction was to “evade or avoid [withdrawal] liability” in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1392 (c).…”
Show all 167 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 1392(a) — 1 case
Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Houston Pipe Line Co., 713 F. Supp. 1527 (N.D. Ill. 1989).
— 29 U.S.C. § 1392(c) — 2 cases
Operating Eng'rs Local 324 v. Bourdow Contracting, Inc., 919 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2019).
United Food & Com. Workers Int'l v. EC Mgmt. Servs. of Georgia, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2021).
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.