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. § 1397

Application of part in case of certain pre-1980 withdrawals; adjustment of covered plan

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) For the purpose of determining the amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to an employer for a partial or complete withdrawal from a plan which occurs after September 25, 1980, and for the purpose of determining whether there has been a partial withdrawal after such date, the amount of contributions, and the number of contribution base units, of such employer properly allocable—(1) to work performed under a collective bargaining agreement for which there was a permanent cessation of the obligation to contribute before September 26, 1980, or(2) to work performed at a facility at which all covered operations permanently ceased before September 26, 1980, or for which there was a permanent cessation of the obligation to contribute before that date,shall not be taken into account.(b) A plan may, in a manner not inconsistent with regulations, which shall be prescribed by the corporation, adjust the amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to other employers under a plan maintained by an employer described in subsection (a).(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, § 4217, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, § 104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1235; amended Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title V, § 558(b)(1)(A), (B), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 899.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–369, § 558(b)(1)(A), (B), substituted “September 25, 1980” for “April 28, 1980” in provisions preceding par. (1) and “September 26, 1980” for “April 29, 1980” in pars. (1) and (2).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1983–1989 · leading case: Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. 888 Corp., 813 F.2d 760 (6th Cir. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. 888 Corp., 813 F.2d 760 (6th Cir. 1987). · cites it 4× “29 U.S.C. § 1397 (a) provides, as amended by DEFRA § 558: For the purpose of determining the amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to an employer for a partial or complete withdrawal from a plan which occurs after September 25, 1980, and for the purpose of determining…”
Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union (Indep.) Pension Fund & Paul Glover v. Louis Zahn Drug Co., 890 F.2d 1405 (7th Cir. 1989). “1983) (whether certain terminals constituted a "facility" within 29 U.S.C. § 1397 (a) was "a nice [mixed] question of fact and law”), cert.”
H.C. Elliott, Inc. v. Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for N. California, 663 F. Supp. 1016 (N.D. Cal. 1987). · cites it 4× “In its motion for leave to file an amended complaint, filed prior to this motion for summary judgment, Elliott also raises the issue of whether a housing construction site is a “facility” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1397 (a)(2). If so, then the amount of Elliott’s…”
Refined Sugars, Inc. v. Local 807 Labor-Mgmt. Pension Fund, 580 F. Supp. 1457 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1397 (a). As in T.I.M. E-DC, Inc.”
MEATCUTTERS U. LOC. 88 v. Del Monte Supermarkets, 565 F. Supp. 27 (E.D. Mo. 1983). “29 U.S.C. § 1397 (a) provides in pertinent part: "For the purpose of determining the amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to an employer for a partial or complete withdrawal from a plan which occurs after April 29, 1980, .”
ILGWU Nat'l Ret. Fund v. Empire State Mills Corp., 696 F. Supp. 885 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “In the other cases cited by defendant the court had to determine whether certain retail stores were facilities within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1397 (a), see Meatcutters Union Local 88 v.”
Barbizon Corp. v. ILGWU Nat'l Ret. Fund, 667 F. Supp. 994 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). · cites it 3× “DISCUSSION The parties appear to agree that the basic issue in the case is whether Barbizon’s closing of its Provo plant was a closing of a facility within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1397 (a)(2) and whether there was a permanent cessation of an obligation to contribute under…”
I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund v. Clinton Engines Corp., 825 F.2d 415 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “at 31-33 (discussing 29 U.S.C. § 1397 (a)). . Neither Clinton nor Cooper contend that they satisfy the conditions set forth in Grand Union for bypassing arbitration.”
The Barbizon Corp. v. Ilgwu Nat'l Ret. Fund, Sol C. Chaikin & Joseph Moore, Defendants, 842 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “ERISA § 4217(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1397 (a) (Supp. Ill 1985). The Fund assessed Barbizon’s withdrawal liability at an amount in excess of $1.”
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.