Skip to main content

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

Withdrawal Liability

  • Opinion Letter 89-08

    Addresses whether an employer may contractually modify its statutory withdrawal liability obligation to a multiemployer plan by assuming "additional liability", and the limitations of such a modification.

    • document

  • Opinion Letter 91-06

    Addresses trustees’ ability to adopt alternative withdrawal liability rules under ERISA sections 4219 and 4224 that modify an employer's withdrawal liability payment terms to take into account an employer's financial condition.

    • document

  • Opinion Letter 90-02

    Addresses (1) the calculation of annual withdrawal liability payments where an employer contributes to a multiemployer plan under multiple collective bargaining agreements requiring different contribution rates (the "contract-by-contract" approach); (2) using the contract-by-contract approach to calculate an employer's required contribution rate following plan termination by amendment; (3) whether alternate interest rates may be used to calculate the value of benefits under the plan following a mass withdrawal; (4) the correction of prior errors in valuation when calculating withdrawal liability.

    • document

  • Opinion Letter 89-05

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 89-5 Augus t 1, 1989 RE FERENCE: [* 1] >4001(a)(8)> 404 1A(f)(1) Multiemployer Termination. Lump Sum PaymentsMultiemployer Termination. Lump Sum Payments 4219(c)( 1)(D) Notice & Collection of Withdrawal Liability - Payment on Mass WithdrawalNotice & Collection ofW ithdrawal Liability - Payment on Mass Withdrawal >29 CFR 2648 > >29 CFR 2675 .12(c)> >29 CFR 2676 > OP INION: I am w riting in response to your inquiry about the calculation of reallocation liability under 29 C.F.R. pt. 2648following the term ination by mass withdrawal of a mult iemployer pension plan (the "Fund") covered by Title IV of the Employee Reti rement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended. You aske d the Pension Be nefit GuarantyCorporat ion ("PB GC") to confirm "that pre-retirement spouse and lump-sum death benefits and post-retirement lump- sum death benefits ar e 'forfeitable' and therefore, not to be included in the valuati on of the Fund" under section421 9(c)(1)(D) of ERISA and 29 C.F.R. pt. 2676. Sec tion 4001(a)(8) of ERISA defines "nonforfeitable benefit" as: a bene fit for which a participant has satisfied the conditions for ent itlement under the plan or the requirements ofthis Act (o ther than submission of a formal application, retirement, [*2] complet ion of a required waiting period, ordea th in the cas e of a benefit which returns all or a portion of a participant's accumulated mandatory employeecontributions upon the participant' s death), whether or not the bene fit may subsequently be re duced or suspended by aplan a mendment, an occurrence of any condition, or operation of this Act or the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. De ath of the parti cipant is a condition of entitlement for each of the three types of benefits you described. Undera terminated plan lik e the Fund (which never provided for mandatory empl

    • document

  • Opinion Letter 86-10

    Addresses calculation of withdrawal liability for a "joint employer” that is no longer required to contribute.

    • document

  • Opinion Letter 82-37

    Addresses the definition of employer in the context of building cleaners at an office building.

    • document

  • Opinion Letter 82-09

    Addresses the definition of the term "building and construction industry" for purposes of the construction industry exception to withdrawal.

    • document

  • Opinion Letter 83-13

    Addresses the definition of the term "building and construction industry" for purposes of the construction industry exception to withdrawal.

    • document

  • Opinion Letter 87-02

    Addresses the definition of the term “assets” for the purpose of the sale-of-assets exception to withdrawal.

    • document

  • Opinion Letter 86-22

    Provides that PBGC approval is not required for a multiemployer plan to adopt a different statutory allocation method for unfunded vested benefits. However, PBGC approval is required for the adoption of an alternative allocation method (i.e. any method other than the four statutory methods).

    • document