29 U.S.C. § 1394
Application of plan amendments; exception
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, Inc., 762 F.2d 1137 (1st Cir. 1985).
Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, Inc., 762 F.2d 1137 (1st Cir. 1985). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1394 (b). Uniformity would seem to require that a rule applying to all employers (should they withdraw) in Year One also would apply to all employers in subsequent years, in the absence of significant changes of circumstance.”
Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. & the Stroh Brewery Co. v. Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan, Cross-Appellee, 3 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 1993). “29 U.S.C. § 1394 (a). The rationale for this rule is the same as the rationale for unanimity in the Association Agreement: otherwise businesses can gang up to squeeze their competitor.”
United Retail & Wholesale Employees Teamsters Union Local No. 115 Pension Plan v. Yahn & Mc Donnell, Inc., 787 F.2d 128 (3rd Cir. 1986). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1394 (b).... Thus, in future years, the trustee’s function is likely to become that of simply applying a designated method of computation to all later withdrawals.”
Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Plan (N.D. Ill. 2025). “Merits of Penske’s Arguments Broadly speaking, Penske raises three arguments that it contends entitle it to summary judgment on its claim: that under the standard of review it urges the Court to apply, Central States lacked authority to expel Local 745 and its decision to do so…”
Ace-Saginaw Paving Co. v. Operating Engineers Local 324 Pension Fund (E.D. Mich. 2024). “(3) Whether the Fund violated 29 U.S.C. § 1394 (b) by failing to provide notice to employers of the change in the withdrawal liability interest rate assumption.”
Boilermaker-Blacksmith Nat'l Pension Trust v. XYZ Corporations &/or Individuals 1-10 (D. Kan. 2020). “The Second Circuit relied in part on 29 U.S.C. § 1394 (a), which states that “[n]o plan rule or amendment .”
Trs. of the Iam Nat'l Pension Fund v. M & K Emp. Solutions, LLC (D.D.C. 2022). “29 U.S.C. § 1394 (a). The discount rate change here happened before M&K’s withdrawal, not after.”
Employees' Ret. Plan of the Nat'l Educ. Ass'n v. Clark Cnty. Educ. Ass'n (D.D.C. 2023). “Under 29 U.S.C. § 1394 (b), plan sponsors must “give notice to all employers who have an obligation to contribute under the plan .”
Trs. of the IAM Nat'l Pension Fund v. Ohio Magnetics, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 2024). “The Fund elected to allow the free-look exception and 10 29 U.S.C. § 1394 expressly limits retroactivity for changes to plan rules and amendments.”
Americold Logistics LLC v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund (D. Mass. 2023). “93A, §§ 2(a), 11 (Count IV), breach of 29 U.S.C. § 1394 (Count V), equitable estoppel (Count VI), and reformation (Count VIII).”
Local No 499, Bd. of Trs. of Shopmen's Pension Plan v. Art Iron, Inc. (N.D. Ohio 2021). “Defendants correctly point out that § 1399(c)(5)(B) provides default based on “any other event defined in rules adopted by the plan which indicates a substantial likelihood that an employer will be unable to pay its withdrawal liability.”
Penske Truck Leasing, LP v. Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas Pensi (7th Cir. 2026). “First, Penske argues that Central States’ interpretation would violate 29 U.S.C. § 1394 (b), which requires that certain plan rules and amendments “operate and be applied uniformly with respect to each employer.”
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.