The Seventh Circuit held that a multiemployer pension fund’s withdrawal liability claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to claims under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA).  After the employer failed to make several quarterly withdrawal liability payments, the fund declared the employer to be in default, accelerated its withdrawal liability, and filed suit in 2008 to collect the accelerated amount.  Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement pursuant to which the employer cured the default and agreed to resume making quarterly payments.  The employer defaulted on its obligation multiple times over the course of several years and in each case entered into a settlement to resume making quarterly payments.  The last time the employer defaulted, the fund sued seeking the withdrawal liability owed based on the most recent settlement agreement.  The employer argued that the claim was time-barred because it began to accrue in 2008 when the fund first accelerated the employer’s withdrawal liability, and not when the employer breached the subsequent settlement agreements.  The district court agreed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.  In so holding, the Seventh Circuit rejected the fund’s argument that it could “decelerate” an employer’s withdrawal liability as there was no basis under the MPPAA for doing so.  The Court also commented that its ruling did not affect the fund’s right to file a state law claim for breach of the settlement agreements.  The case is Bauwens v. Revcon Technology Group, Inc., No. 18-3306, 2019 WL 3797983 (7th Cir. 2019).

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Neil V. Shah Neil V. Shah

Neil V. Shah is a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group, where he focuses on ERISA litigation.

He is the lead attorney representing the firm’s Taft-Hartley plan clients in withdrawal liability and delinquent contributions matters.  As part of his practice…

Neil V. Shah is a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group, where he focuses on ERISA litigation.

He is the lead attorney representing the firm’s Taft-Hartley plan clients in withdrawal liability and delinquent contributions matters.  As part of his practice, Neil pursues employers, their owners and officers, and affiliated companies to collect the amounts owed to these plans using a variety of complex legal theories, and has secured several precedential opinions and multi-million-dollar judgments in their favor.  Neil also defends these plans in arbitrations challenging the methods and assumptions used to calculate withdrawal liability, which has yielded a number of notable arbitration decisions and court opinions.  Owing to his experience in this area, Neil is a co-editor of the withdrawal liability chapter of the premier employee benefits treatise, Employee Benefits Law, published by Bloomberg, and regularly presents on the topic before practitioners and consultants that work in the area, such as at meetings of the Conference of Consulting Actuaries and the Employee Benefits Section of ABA’s Section of Labor & Employment Law.

In addition to his Taft-Hartley plan experience, Neil has represented several plan sponsors and fiduciaries in ERISA class actions alleging that the plan’s investments or other practices are imprudent, such as excessive fee and stock drop cases.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Neil was an associate at a large regional firm, where he litigated individual and class actions involving challenges to insurer claims adjudication procedures under ERISA, fraud recoveries against healthcare providers, and claims for benefits.

Neil has authored several articles, including those published in the New Jersey Law Journal and Bloomberg National Affairs.  He is also a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Blog.