Featured Topics
Retirement Industry
Magazine Archive
Education/Advice
Where Do you Go for Financial Advice?
The court found further support of its ruling external to the statute’s text. In its interpretation of the PPA, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has adopted regulations for calculating employer liability for withdrawal from plans in critical status. In addition, the court pointed out that the trustees of the Local 138 Pension Trust Fund contemplated the possibility of “voluntary” withdrawals in its rehabilitation plan. The plan explained that it did not contain only the high-contribution schedules necessary for the fund to emerge from critical status because such contribution rates “would undoubtedly drive employers to withdraw from the [fund],” given the trustees’ “reasonable assumption that employers would be unwilling to continue to participate in the [fund] if the cost of doing so were to exceed the cost of withdrawing.” “[W]e are reassured by the plaintiffs’ own expressed understanding that voluntary withdrawal was permissible notwithstanding the operation of the PPA’s mechanism for dealing with pension plans in critical status,” Walker wrote. In March 2008, the trustees announced the fund was in critical status as defined by the PPA. In November of that year they finalized a rehabilitation plan, which, as required by the PPA, set forth several new schedules of reduced benefits and increased contributions.
The court found further support of its ruling external to the statute’s text. In its interpretation of the PPA, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has adopted regulations for calculating employer liability for withdrawal from plans in critical status.
In addition, the court pointed out that the trustees of the Local 138 Pension Trust Fund contemplated the possibility of “voluntary” withdrawals in its rehabilitation plan. The plan explained that it did not contain only the high-contribution schedules necessary for the fund to emerge from critical status because such contribution rates “would undoubtedly drive employers to withdraw from the [fund],” given the trustees’ “reasonable assumption that employers would be unwilling to continue to participate in the [fund] if the cost of doing so were to exceed the cost of withdrawing.”
“[W]e are reassured by the plaintiffs’ own expressed understanding that voluntary withdrawal was permissible notwithstanding the operation of the PPA’s mechanism for dealing with pension plans in critical status,” Walker wrote.