Guidance Document Database

A plan sponsor has no liability for the benefits in a terminated plan that were provided to plan participants through the distribution of irrevocable commitments purchased from an insurance company.

Following a restructuring of three pension plans maintained by one company, each restructured plan remains a Title IV covered plan, each plan qualifies as a successor plan, and the plan sponsor would be liable to PBGC for any funding deficiency at termination.

River pilot is not a professional individual for purposes of the Professional Service Employer exemption.

Whether the language in a plan document providing for the reversion of residual assets to the employer complies with the law.

Plan that is tax-qualified under IRC 401(a) is covered by Title IV.

Plan does not meet the Governmental plan exemption from coverage.

Each plan of an employer is obligated to pay premiums to PBGC when an individual participant actively earns service credit in multiple plans of the employer.

Plan is not an individual account plan. Plan is not be exempt from Title IV coverage.

Pending regulations, plans have the ability to adopt reasonable rules to abate an employer’s withdrawal liability.

For PBGC to suspend a plan termination, PBGC must be advised timely and in writing that a formal challenge has been initiated asserting that the termination violates an existing collective bargaining agreement.

Addresses whether interest rate changes subsequent to the mass withdrawal valuation date may be considered in determining the reallocation liability upon a mass withdrawal. It also addresses the burden of proof a multiemployer plan must satisfy to show an amendment increasing benefits was adopted earlier than the formal date of adoption which would make payment of the benefit increase covered by the PBGC guarantee.

Plan of municipal corporation designated by constitution as political subdivision of state and having taxing power is a Governmental plan exempt under ERISA 4021(b)(2).

Addresses whether certain corporate transactions would trigger withdrawals and discusses whether these corporate transactions may be disregarded under the evade or avoid provision of the law.

For a chain of food stores, a single store is ordinarily a “facility” for purposes of section 4217 of ERISA.

When a defined benefit multiemployer plan merges into a defined contribution annuity plan, the multiemployer plan terminates; addresses the rules and procedures governing distribution of the assets of a terminated multiemployer plan.

Considers the timing of the bond/escrow requirement in a sale of assets and requests that PBGC grant a waiver of the bond/escrow and contract language requirements.

Analytical chemistry is a professional individual for purposes of the Professional Service Employer plan exemption.

Addresses whether a seller and purchaser can retroactively bring a sale of assets within the coverage of the law by posting an appropriate bond and by amending the sales contract.

Addresses the definition of withdrawal for a construction industry employer.

A plan maintained exclusively for substantial owners is exempt from coverage under Title IV.

The purchase of participating group annuity contracts to satisfy all accrued benefits with a termination/reestablishment transaction of a plan is permissible.

Addresses whether certain types of labor disputes involving an employer’s employees would constitute a withdrawal from a multiemployer plan and specifically cites strikes and lockouts as examples.

Addresses what may constitute a complete or partial withdrawal from a multiemployer plan as a result of certain events occurring during contract negotiations; addresses the labor dispute exemption from withdrawal liability.

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.

Provides that because guaranteed benefits are determined at time of plan termination, a clause in a plan that provides for the cessation of benefits in pay status of participants who violate prohibitions against certain competitive employment will be determined at such time that the clause becomes applicable to a participant.