## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Legal Resources 
-  Legal Decisions 

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.

# Legal Decisions

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

### 2018

                          - *Lewis v. PBGC*, No. 17-5068 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 21, 2018) (reversing the district court and agreeing with PBGC that under the plain language of 29 U.S.C. § 1344(c), plan participants have no right to share in PBGC’s post-termination gains on plan assets)

### 2017

                          - *PBGC v. Idaho Hyperbarics, Inc.*, No. 16-325 (D. Idaho May 15, 2017) (holding that the relevant limitations period is three years from the date that PBGC acquired knowledge of discrepancies in defendant’s benefit payments, and overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss PBGC’s complaint)
                          - *PBGC v. Durango Georgia Paper Co.*, No. 02-21669 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 18, 2017) (holding that the amount of PBGC’s bankruptcy claim for the unfunded benefit liabilities of Durango’s pension plan must be calculated in accordance with ERISA and PBGC’s Valuation Regulation)

### 2016

                          - *PBGC v. Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp.*, No. 15-6283 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2016) (upholding PBGC’s choice of termination date for the employer’s pension plan)

### 2015

                          - *Deppenbrook v. PBGC*, No. 13-5254 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 20, 2015) (affirming PBGC’s benefit determination under a deferential standard, and holding that the appellant was not entitled to shutdown benefits, that PBGC properly insured only the defined benefit portion of the appellant’s benefit, and that PBGC did not improperly amend the appellant’s pension plan)
                          - *Royal Oak Enters., Inc. v. PBGC*, No. 13‐1040 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2015) (agreeing with PBGC, under a deferential standard, that Royal Oak's post‐termination amendment to its pension plan, which resulted in decreased benefits to participants, was impermissible)
                          - *PBGC v. Kentucky Bancshares, Inc.*, No. 14‐5573 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2015) (agreeing with PBGC, under a deferential standard, that Kentucky Bancshares’ post‐termination amendment to its pension plan, which resulted in decreased benefits to participants, was impermissible)

### 2014

                          - *Supplement B Pilot Beneficiaries v. AMR Corp. (In re AMR Corp.)*, No. 12-7800 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) (affirming, *inter alia*, bankruptcy court’s decision that AMR could properly amend a pension plan to eliminate its lump sum feature, under a recently promulgated Treasury Regulation, to avoid an untenable surge of pilot retirements when AMR emerged from bankruptcy, or possible plan termination by PBGC)  
                          - ***Cox Enter. v. News‐Journal Corp.***, No. 04‐698 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2014) (ruling on remand that because News‐Journal Corp. was insolvent at the time it distributed its estate, creditor PBGC was entitled to be paid before any distribution was made to shareholder Cox, and rejecting Cox's attempts to relitigate issues already decided by the district court and the Eleventh Circuit)
                          - *US Airline Pilots Ass'n v. PBGC*, No. 09‐1675 (D.D.C. June 20, 2014) (finding that PBGC properly discharged its duties to investigate the financial affairs of a terminated pension plan — including allegations of improper transfers of plan assets, self-dealing, conflicts of interest, and questionable investment strategies — and concluding that PBGC fulfilled its fiduciary duties under Title IV of ERISA with respect to the plan)
                          - **PBGC v. Kentucky Bancshares, Inc.**, No. 13‐143 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 17, 2014) (upholding, under a deferential standard, PBGC's determination in connection with a standard termination of a plan that distributions to participants were erroneously calculated because they were based in part on plan amendments that occurred after the plan's termination date)
                          - *DeLeon v. U.S. Airways*, No. 12­‐0503 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2014) (upholding, under a deferential standard, PBGC's determination of Plaintiff's pension benefit on the basis of the unambiguous language of the plan, and declining to invalidate PBGC's determination on the basis of a separate corporate policy statement of which PBGC was unaware)

### 2013

                          - *Davis v. PBGC*, No. 12‐5274 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2013) (upholding PBGC Appeals Board's determinations regarding benefits in Priority Category 3 under 29 U.S.C. § 1344(a); declining to decide claims not briefed on appeal; and not deciding the question of the appropriate standard of review, because PBGC would prevail under any standard in this appeal)
                          - *Powell Valley Nat'l Bank v. PBGC*, No. 12‐18 (W.D. Va. Sept. 4, 2013) (upholding PBGC's determination that a plan administrator abused his discretion by calculating lump sums on the basis of plan amendments adopted after the plan had terminated, even though such amendments were intended to conform the plan to existing law)
                          - ***Quality Automotive Svcs. v. PBGC***, No. 12‐1503 (D.D.C., Aug. 15, 2013) (upholding PBGC's determination that QAS's withdrawal from a multiemployer fund would cause substantial damage to the fund's contribution base, notwithstanding QAS's replacement by another company with a similar level of required contributions to the fund)
                          - **Sun Capital Partners III v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pens. Fund*,* No. 12-2312 (1st Cir., July 15, 2013) (agreeing with**amicus curiae** PBGC that at least one of two private equity funds was a "trade or business" under "common control" with the withdrawing employer for purposes of liability under MPPAA, and according**Skidmore**deference to the PBGC Appeals Board's analysis of the same issue in a prior case)
                          - *Deppenbrook v. PBGC*, No. 11-600 (D.D.C., June 18, 2013) (upholding under a deferential standard PBGC Appeals Board's conclusions that plaintiffs were not eligible for shutdown benefits under PBGC regulations, because they did not undergo a break in service as a result of a plant shutdown prior to the pension plan's termination date, and their earlier receipt of termination notices under the Workers Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act did not constitute a constructive break in service).
                          - **H&R Convention & Catering Corp. v. Somerstein**, No. 12‐1425 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2013) (holding that PBGC's assumption of trusteeship of a terminated plan deprives a former plan fiduciary of standing to maintain actions as a fiduciary; and declining to consider equitable remedy of declaratory relief for former fiduciary's claim for contribution and indemnity where former fiduciary had adequate legal remedies available under ERISA's comprehensive regulatory scheme and applicable precedent).
                          - *VanderKam v. PBGC*, No. 09‐1907 (D.D.C., May 7, 2013) (affirming PBGC Appeals Board's determination that a participant's spouse's interest in a survivor benefit under a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity vests on the Annuity Start Date, and cannot be divested by a subsequent domestic relations order purporting to transfer the interest in the survivor benefit to a subsequent spouse; and also rejecting the subsequent spouse's related state law claims as preempted by ERISA).

### 2012

                          - *PBGC v. Town & Country Bank & Trust Co.*, No. 3:11-cv-602 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2012) (upholding PBGC’s determination that the plan’s calculation of lump sums in connection with plan termination erroneously gave effect to a post-termination plan amendment that decreased the value of the lump sums, contrary to PBGC’s regulation barring such amendments).
                          - *Davis v. PBGC*, No. 08-1064 (D.D.C. May 30, 2012) (confirming that PBGC’s determinations and statutory interpretations are entitled to substantial deference, and comprehensively upholding PBGC’s benefit determinations for about 1,700 U.S. Airways pilots, including its actuarial assumptions and adjustments, allocation of benefits to priority categories, and interpretations of the plan and ERISA).
                          - *PBGC v. Asahi Tec Corp.,* No. 10-1936 (D.D.C. Mar 14, 2012) (holding that a U.S. District Court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident foreign controlled group member as a direct consequence of that entity’s stock ownership of a plan sponsor on the plan’s termination date)
                          - *PBGC v. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC,* No. 11-cv-1961 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2012) (agreeing with PBGC that discovery beyond the administrative record is not permissible in an action to enforce PBGC’s administrative determinations under ERISA § 4062(e)).
                          - *Cox Enterprises v. PBGC*, No. 10-14240 (11th Cir. Jan. 4, 2012) (vacating lower court's award to shareholder Cox, and holding that, consistent with Florida's distributions-to-shareholders statute, the proceeds from the sale of News-Journal must be used to pay News-Journal's other creditors, including PBGC, before any money is paid to shareholders such as Cox).

### 2011

                            - *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)
                            - *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)
                            - *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)
                            - *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)

### 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)
                          - *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)
                          - *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)

### 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)

### 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)

### 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)

### 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)

### 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)

### 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)

### 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)

August 22, 2018