Opinion letters database

Merger and transfer rules do not apply to a potential merger of a multiemployer welfare fund and pension fund.

Deposit of a letter of credit in an escrow account may satisfy the escrow requirement of ERISA Section 4204(a)(1)(B) regarding withdrawal from a multiemployer plan and sale of assets to an unrelated party.

Addresses the definition of “building and construction industry” and explains that the term should be given the same meaning as it has under the Taft-Hartley Act.

The plan in question was determined to be a political subdivision within the meaning of Title IV and therefore excluded from Title IV coverage.

A non-profit public corporation established by a local government, and that local government appoints the members of the Board of Trustees is a governmental plan and is therefore excluded from Title IV coverage.

Addresses liability of a substantial employer for withdrawal and the posting of a bond or placing of funds in an escrow account.

Addresses plan specific provisions

Clarification on whether section 4235 of ERISA applies if the union bargaining with an employer that undergoes withdrawal from a plan has changed as a result of the certification of a different union. PBGC found there was no evidence a certified change in bargaining representative occurred.

This letter addresses the distribution of residual assets to an employer.

Discussion of possible liability to purchaser, solely for cash and with no relationship to sponsor/seller.

This letter answers a request for reconsideration and addresses the distribution of residual assets to an employer.

This plan was determined to be governmental and therefore excluded from Title IV coverage.

Addresses liability of a substantial employer for withdrawal and the posting of a bond or placing of funds in an escrow account.

Concludes that an amount transferred from an insurance policy to a plan constitutes voluntary employee contributions to the Plan within the meaning of Section 4044(a)(1).

Addresses the applicability of the sale of assets exception to the construction industry complete withdrawal rules. Here, there would not be a complete withdrawal as the seller would not continue work in the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement.

This letter addresses an inquiry about the distribution of excess assets attributable to employer contributions. Because the plan was amended to permit reversion, PBGC does not object to the reversion of assets attributable to the employer contributions.

Liability from the termination of a plan and § 4062.

A particular retirement arrangement is not covered under Title IV because it is not tax qualified.

PBGC accepted the withdrawal of a plan’s notice of intent to terminate because the employers would continue to make contributions pursuant to their collective bargaining agreements, and the plan participants would continue to receive credit under the plan for service with contributing employers.

A plan maintained by a company under contract to provide services for a Federal agency was not a governmental plan excluded from Title IV coverage.

Clarification of PBGC’s interim regulation on Alternative Allocation Methods and discussion of the denominators in the various methods and the meaning of various terms under the interim regulation.

PBGC did not guarantee benefits for a terminated plan, the termination of which was done in concert with the establishment of new retirement arrangements designed to provide substantially the same benefits.

A plan that met the criteria for tax qualification for five years prior to its termination date was a covered plan at the time of termination.

If A Corporation purchases certain B Corporation assets in exchange for A assuming certain enumerated liabilities of B, and A acquires the assets and assumes the liabilities of B pension plan and pension plans of C Corporation, a B subsidiary, A will be liable to PBGC under § 4062 in the event that any of the assumed plans terminate. The amount of such liability would not be limited by any agreement between A and B, and A would not be regarded as a successor corporation to B with respect to any existing plans maintained by B and not assumed by A.

Plan did not properly terminate and does not meet criteria under § 4021(b)(5) for coverage exclusion because Plan was funded in part by employer contributions and the exclusion applies only to plans funded solely by employee contributions.