29 U.S.C. § 1398

Withdrawal not to occur because of change in business form or suspension of contributions during labor dispute

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

Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, an employer shall not be considered to have withdrawn from a plan solely because—(1) an employer ceases to exist by reason of—(A) a change in corporate structure described in section 1369(b) of this title, or(B) a change to an unincorporated form of business enterprise,if the change causes no interruption in employer contributions or obligations to contribute under the plan, or(2) an employer suspends contributions under the plan during a labor dispute involving its employees.For purposes of this part, a successor or parent corporation or other entity resulting from any such change shall be considered the original employer.(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, § 4218, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, § 104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1236; amended Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, § 1879(u)(4), as added Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7862(b)(1)(C), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2432; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7893(f), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2447.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1989—Par. (1)(A). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7893(f), made identical amendment to that of Pub. L. 99–514, § 1879(u)(4), as added by Pub. L. 101–239, § 7862(b)(1)(C), see below.

Pub. L. 101–239, § 7862(b)(1)(C), added Pub. L. 99–514, § 1879(u)(4), see 1986 Amendment note below.

1986—Par. (1)(A). Pub. L. 99–514, § 1879(u)(4), as added by Pub. L. 101–239, § 7862(b)(1)(C), substituted “section 1369(b) of this title” for “section 1362(d) of this title”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by section 7862(b)(1)(C) of Pub. L. 101–239 effective as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 7863 of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 106 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Amendment by section 7893(f) of Pub. L. 101–239 effective as if included in the provision of the Single-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–272, title XI, to which such amendment relates, see section 7893(h) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 1002 of this title.

Plan Amendments Not Required Until January 1, 1989

For provisions directing that if any amendments made by subtitle A or subtitle C of title XI [§§ 1101–1147 and 1171–1177] or title XVIII [§§ 1800–1899A] of Pub. L. 99–514 require an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall not be required to be made before the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 1989, see section 1140 of Pub. L. 99–514, as amended, set out as a note under section 401 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 60 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: The Penn Cent. Corp. v. W. Conf. of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 75 F.3d 529 (9th Cir. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The Penn Cent. Corp. v. W. Conf. of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 75 F.3d 529 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 11× “First, we must decide whether Penn Central is exempt from withdrawal liability under 29 U.S.C. § 1398 . Second, we must decide whether an award of attorneys’ fees to the Fund was appropriate.”

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 3× “” See 29 U.S.C. § 1398 ; Request for Review at 1-2.”

Marvin Hayes Lines, Inc. v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, Defendant, 814 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “In July of 1984, Hayes sought review of this demand by the Fund on the grounds that since it had suspended payments due to a labor dispute that there had been no partial withdrawal, relying on the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 1398 (2). Hayes followed this action with a demand for…”

Combs v. Adkins & Adkins Coal Co., Inc., 597 F. Supp. 122 (D.D.C. 1984). · cites it 3× “The two pending motions present three issues for the Court’s consideration: first, whether venue lies in the District of Columbia; second, whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants; and third, whether the defendants have withdrawn from a multiemployer…”

T.I.M.E.—DC, Inc. v. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 294 (E.D.N.Y 1983). · cites it 3× “TIME-DC claims that the statutory labor dispute exception, 29 U.S.C. § 1398 (2), relieves it of the obligation to remit the withdrawal liability payments.”

Hop Energy, L.L.C. v. Local 553 Pension Fund, 678 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “" 29 U.S.C. § 1398 (1). Once the third condition is satisfied, that is, once the seller's contribution obligation passes to the buyer, the plan suffers no harm on account of the transaction alone.”

Findlay Truck Line, Inc. v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 726 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1398 (2). This principle is important because labor unions are often involved in alleged withdrawals, if only because employers’ obligations to pension funds often arise under collective bargaining agreements with their employ *743 ees’ labor unions.”

Centra, Inc. v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 578 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “Truck from CenTra’s controlled group met certain statutory safe harbors under the MPPAA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1398 , 1369(b), which prevented CenTra from incurring withdrawal liability at any point along the way.”

Bowers v. Andrew Weir Shipping, Ltd., 810 F. Supp. 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). · cites it 4× “In the arbitration, Bank Line and Safmarine contended only that no withdrawals from the Fund occurred on their part due to the application of 29 U.S.C. § 1398 (1) of the MPPAA. 4 They presented four sub-issues to the arbitrator for resolution: (1) who are the relevant pre-1988…”

Sheet Metal Workers' Pension Fund, Local Union No. 85 v. Advanced Metal & Welding Corp., 643 F. Supp. 1201 (N.D. Ga. 1986). · cites it 4× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1398 (2). When a withdrawal occurs, it is the duty of the plan’s sponsor to determine the amount of the employer’s withdrawal liability (by one of the methods provided for under 29 U.”

Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, Plaintiff v. Bellmont Trucking Co., Inc., 788 F.2d 428 (7th Cir. 1986). “29 U.S.C. § 1398 . Section 1384 provides that a complete or partial withdrawal does not occur solely because of an arm’s length sale of assets to an unrelated party if certain conditions are met.”

Loran W. Robbins, Cross-Appellants v. McNicholas Transp. Co., Cross-Appellee, 819 F.2d 682 (7th Cir. 1987). “The Trustees’ determination that McNicholas *684 had withdrawn was erroneous because 29 U.S.C. § 1398 provides Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, an employer shall not be considered to have withdrawn from a plan solely because— * * * * * * (2) an employer suspends…”

Show all 60 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.