Resources

• Search
• Annual Reports
• Pension Insurance Data Books
• Fact Sheets
• Stay Informed
• Laws & Regulations
• Other Guidance
• Additional Resources
• Research Reports

Legal Filings and Decisions

Legal Filings

Legal filings are submitted by PBGC in support of our efforts to preserve and safeguard pensions.

• Recent Filings

  • In re Harry & David Holdings, Inc., No. 11-10884 (Supplemental Opposition filed July 13, 2011) (arguing that the pension plan sponsor does not meet the requirements for a distress termination of the plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1341) [PDF]
  • US Airline Pilots Ass’n v. PBGC, No. 09­‑1675 (Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or for Summary Judgment filed July 12, 2011) (arguing that plaintiffs’ claims that PBGC violated its fiduciary duties are barred by the statute of limitations and fail on the merits, and that, in any event, plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief) [PDF]
    • PBGC Reply Brief (filed Aug. 31, 2011)

• All Filings

  2011

  • FBOP Corp. v. PBGC, No. 11-cv-2782 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 9, 2011) (PBGC motion to dismiss FBOP’s amended complaint as duplicative of PBGC’s May 2011 amended complaint and otherwise not justiciable) [PDF]
  • In re Harry & David Holdings, Inc., No. 11-10884 (Bankr. D. Del. June 7, 2011) (Opposition of PBGC to Debtors’ motion for approval of a distress termination of its pension plan) [PDF]
  • PBGC, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt., No. 10-4497 (2nd Cir.) (Appellants’ Brief filed May 26, 2011) (seeking to reinstate complaint against pension plan’s investment manager for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA and related state law causes of action) [PDF]
    • PBGC Reply Brief (filed Aug. 12, 2011) [PDF]
  • In re Wolverine Tube, Inc., No. 10‑13522 (Bankr. D. Del. May 17, 2011) (response of PBGC to Debtor’s Motion for Approval of Distress Termination of Pension Plan) [PDF]
  • PBGC v. FBOP Corp (N.D.III.) (amended complaint filed May 20, 2011) (action to terminate pension plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1342) [PDF]
    • FBOP Amended Complaint Exhibit 1 [PDF]

Legal Decisions

Legal decisions are issued by courts across the country in response to PBGC filings.

• Recent Decisions

  • Davis v. PBGC, No. 08-1064 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2011) (holding that, because plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was “riddled with unsupported assertions” and “filled with improper information,” and improperly relied on extra-record materials, the Court could not fairly adjudicate count eight of the amended complaint) [PDF]
  • National Shopmen Pension Fund v. DISA Indus., Inc., No. 10-1827 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2011) (agreeing with amicus curiae PBGC that ERISA’s requirement that an employer arbitrate any dispute about an assessment of withdrawal liability before challenging it in court applies with equal force to a revision of a previously undisputed assessment) [PDF]
  • PBGC v. Ferfolia Funeral Homes, Inc., No. 11-cv-574 (N.D. Ohio July 20, 2011) (holding that the limitations period applicable to PBGC’s action to correct benefit distributions under a standard termination of a pension plan began to run on the date of the distributions, not the date of plan termination) [PDF]
  • Stephens v. US Airways Group, Inc., No. 10-7100 (D.C. Cir. July 15, 2011) (agreeing with PBGC that plaintiffs’ lump sum benefits were the actuarial equivalent of their annuitized benefits under their pension plan and that neither ERISA nor the Judicial Code authorizes an award of attorneys against PBGC, and further holding that plaintiffs may be entitled to interest to the extent of any unreasonable delay in paying their lump sum benefits) [PDF]

• All Decisions

  2010

  • PBGC v. Rouge Steel Co., 50 E.B.C. 1266, 2010 WL 3324921 (E.D. Mich. Aug, 22, 2010) (upholding PBGC's recommended plan termination date under 29 U.S.C. § 1348) [PDF]
  • PBGC v. Admin. Comm. for the New United Motor Mfg., Inc./UAW Hourly Defined Ben. Plan, No. 10-898 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2010) (where PBGC’s action to terminate pension plan was rendered moot by settlement agreement with plan’s administrator, union’s motion to intervene in termination action would be denied) [PDF]
  • Stephens v. PBGC, 696 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. Mar. 17, 2010) (upholding PBGC's calculation of benefits under US Airways pilots' pension plan) (appeal docketed Aug, 2010) [PDF]

  2009

  • PBGC v. Oneida, Ltd., 562 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. Apr. 8, 2009) (PBGC claim for termination premium not dischargeable in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings) [PDF]

  2007

  • Beck v. PACE Int’l Union, 551 U.S. 96 (2007) (U.S. Supreme Court) (agreeing with amicus curiae PBGC that because merger is not a permissible means of pension plan termination under ERISA, plan fiduciaries had no obligation to consider whether to merge pension plan with union-sponsored pension plan in lieu of plan termination) [PDF]

  2000

  • Raleigh v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15 (2000) (U.S. Supreme Court) (agreeing with amicus curiae PBGC that creditors’ entitlements in bankruptcy are determined by reference to the nonbankruptcy law that gave rise to the obligation, subject to any qualifying or contrary provisions in the Bankruptcy Code) [PDF]

  1997

  • Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pens. Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Calif., 522 U.S. 192 (1997) (U.S. Supreme Court) (agreeing with amicus curiae PBGC that six-year limitations period for withdrawal liability payments under MPPAA begins to run on due date of first installment payment, and each subsequent installment payment has a separate limitations period) [PDF]

  1993

  • Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Pens. Trust, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) (U.S. Supreme Court) (agreeing with amicus curiae PBGC that the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 did not effect a denial of procedural or substantive due process, or a taking of property without just compensation) [PDF]

  1990

  • PBGC v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) (U.S. Supreme Court) (PBGC determination to restore terminated pension plans to their sponsor under 29 U.S.C. § 1347 was not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act) [PDF]

  1980

  • Nachman Corp. v. PBGC, 446 U.S. 359 (1980) (holding that benefits that are “nonforfeitable” for purposes of employer liability under Title IV of ERISA are not rendered forfeitable by a provision in the pension plan purporting to limit the employer’s liability to benefits for which there are plan assets at the time of plan termination) [PDF]