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. § 1400

Approval of amendments

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Amendment of covered multiemployer plan; procedures applicable

Except as provided in subsection (b), if an amendment to a multiemployer plan authorized by any preceding section of this part is adopted more than 36 months after the effective date of this section, the amendment shall be effective only if the corporation approves the amendment, or, within 90 days after the corporation receives notice and a copy of the amendment from the plan sponsor, fails to disapprove the amendment.

(b) Amendment respecting methods for computing withdrawal liability

An amendment permitted by section 1391(c)(5) of this title may be adopted only in accordance with that section.

(c) Criteria for disapproval by corporation

The corporation shall disapprove an amendment referred to in subsection (a) or (b) only if the corporation determines that the amendment creates an unreasonable risk of loss to plan participants and beneficiaries or to the corporation.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, § 4220, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, § 104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1239.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

For the effective date of this section, referred to in subsec. (a), see 1461(e)(2) of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2005–2023 · leading case: Lillian L. Mosely v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lillian L. Mosely v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2006). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1400 (d)(1)(A) (FAPE substantive right); 20 U.”
Y.B. v. Bd. of Educ., 895 F. Supp. 2d 689 (D. Md. 2012). “Presently pending and ready for resolution in this action arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Board of Education of Prince George’s County (“the Board”) and Dr.”
Sinan L. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 293 F. App'x 912 (3d Cir. 2008). “This appeal involves a claim for tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 29 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Appellants Mohamed and Aysha L.”
A.Y. ex rel. D.Y. v. Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist., 569 F. Supp. 2d 496 (M.D. Pa. 2008). “On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs commenced this action under the Individuals *499 with Disabilities Education Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1400 , et seq, by filing a complaint.”
LMP ex rel. EP v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 516 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2007). “, and all other similarly situated disabled children, a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims against various Defendants pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1400 , et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504"),…”
Jean Coleman v. Pottstown Sch. Dist., 581 F. App'x 141 (3d Cir. 2014). “’s learning disability as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. 1 This IEP (“2006 IEP”) documented that R.”
Trs. of the Iam Nat'l Pension Fund v. M & K Emp. Solutions, LLC, 694 F. Supp. 3d 54 (D.D.C. 2023). “51 29 U.S.C. § 1400 (a). Contra M&K ES’s MSJ at 30 n.”
Beale v. Redbubble, Inc, No. 4:22-cv-06364 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022). “12(b)(3) And 29 U.S.C. § 1400 (a) (Dkt. 18) (“Defendant TP Apparel’s Reply”); on the same date, Defendant Redbubble filed its Reply Memorandum Of Law In Support of Redbubble, Inc.”
Avaras v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 7:15-cv-09679-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2021). “Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 20 U.”
Beale v. Redbubble, Inc, No. 1:22-cv-00203 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2022). “12(b)(3) And 29 U.S.C. § 1400 (a) (Dkt. 18) (“Defendant TP Apparel’s Reply”); on the same date, Defendant Redbubble filed its Reply Memorandum Of Law In Support of Redbubble, Inc.”
Mosely, Lillian L. v. Chicago Bd Educ, No. 03-4074 (7th Cir. Jan. 4, 2006). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1400 (d)(1)(A) (FAPE substantive right); 20 U.”
Montgomery Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. S.C. ex rel. D.C., 135 F. App'x 534 (3d Cir. 2005). “This appeal concerns a claim for tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Appellant Montgomery Township Board of Education (“the Board”) challenges the District Court’s determination that the Board failed to…”
Show all 13 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.