17-1211-cv

The National Retirement Fund, et al. v. Metz Culinary Management, Inc.

1 UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SEC OND C I RC UIT 3 August Term, 2017 4 Docket No. 17-1211-cv 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 THE NATIONAL RETIREMENT FUND, EAC H ON BEHALF OF THE LEGAC Y 7 PLAN OF THE NATIONAL RETIREMENT FUND, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 8 THE NATIONAL RETIREMENT FUND, EAC H ON BEHALF OF THE LEGAC Y 9 PLAN OF THE NATIONAL RETIREMENT FUND, 10 11 Pl ainti ffs – C ounter – Defendants – Appel l ees, 12 13 v. 14 15 METZ C ULINARY MANAGEMENT, INC . , 16 17 Defendant – C o unter – C l ai mant – Appel l ant. 18 19 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 22 ARGUED: February 8, 2018 23 DEC I DED: January 2, 2020 24 25 B e f o r e: WINTER, LIVINGSTON, and C HIN, C i rcui t Judges. 26

11 Appealfrom a judgment of the Uni ted States Di stri ct C o urt for the 2 Southern Di stri c t of New York (Val eri e C aproni, Judge), vacating an arbi trati on 3 award. The award hel d that interest rate assumpti ons for purposes of 4 wi thdrawalfrom a mul ti empl oyer pensi on pl an l i abi l i ty are those i n effect on the 5 l ast day of the year precedi ng the empl oyer’s wi thdrawal . The di stri ct court hel d 6 that interest rate assumpti ons may be determi ned after wi thdrawaland 7 retroacti vel y i mposed. We di sagree and vacate. 8 ROBERT LITVIN (Pai sner Li tvin LLP, on the 9 bri ef), Bal a C ynwyd, PA, for Defendant – 10 C ounter – C l ai mant – Appel l ant. 11 12 RONALD E. RIC HMAN (Schul t e Roth & Zabel 13 LLP, on the bri ef), New York, New York, for 14 Pl ai nti ffs – C ounter – Defendants – Appel l ees. 15 16 Robert R. Perry, Todd H. Gi rshon (Jackson Lewi s 17 P.C .), New York, New York, for Ami cus C uri ae 18 Joseph Abboud Manufacturi ng C orp. and 19 Waterford Hotel Group, Inc. 20 21 22 WINTER, C i rcui t Judge: 23 24 25 Metz C ul inary Management, Inc., a contributing empl oyer to the Nati onal 26 Reti rement Fund, appeal s from Judge C aproni ’s deci si on vacating Arbi trator Ira

21 F. Jaffe’s award. Hi s award hel d that appel l ees i mproperl y cal cul ated appel l ant’s 2 wi thdrawall i abi l i ty based on i nterest rate assumpti ons adopted i n 2014 after 3 appel l ant wi thdrew from the Pl an. The di stri ct court hel d that Secti on 4213 of the Empl o yee Reti rement Income Securi ty Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C . § 1393, does not 4 5 requi re actuari es to cal cul ate wi thdrawall i abi l i ty based on i nterest rate 6 assumpti ons used pri o r to an empl oyer’s wi thdrawal from a pl an. The di stri ct 7 court further hel d that interest rate assumpti ons must be affi rmati vel y reached 8 and may not rol lover automati cal l yfrom the precedi ng pl an year. For reasons 9 stated bel ow, we vacate the di stri ct court’s judgment. 10 BAC KGROUND 11 Appel l ees are a trust fund, establ i shed and mai ntained pursuant to Secti on 12 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Rel ati ons Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C . § 186(c)(5), 13 and i ts Board of Trustees (“Trustees”). The Fund -- through i ts Trustees -- 14 sponsors and admi ni sters the Legacy Pl an of the Nati onal Reti rement Fund (the 15 “Pl an”), a mul ti empl oyer pl an wi thin the meani ng of Secti on 3(37) of ERISA, 29 16 U.S.C . § 1002(37). 17 In mul ti empl oyer pensi on pl ans, several “empl oyers pool c o ntributi ons 18 into a si ngl e fund that pays benefi ts to covered reti rees who spent a certai n 31 amount of ti me worki ng for one or more of the contri buting empl oyers.” Trs. of 2 The Local138 Pensi on Tr. Fund v. F.W. Honerkamp C o., 692 F.3d 127, 129 (2d 3 C i r. 2012). Appel l ant was an empl oyer contributing to the Pl an unti lMay 16, 4 2014 when i t effectuated a compl ete wi thdrawalfrom the Pl an. See Secti on 5 4203(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C . § 1383(a). 6 When a pl an i s underfunded, an empl o yer seeki ng to wi thdraw must pay 7 i ts share of unfunded vested benefi ts (“UVBs”). See 29 U.S.C . § 1381(b)(1). UVBs 8 are “cal cul ated as the di fference between the present val u e of vested benefi ts and 9 the current val ue of the pl an’s assets.” Pensi o n Benefi t Guar. C orp. V. R.A. Gray 10 & C o ., 467 U.S. 717, 725 (1984) (ci ting 29 U.S.C . §§ 1381, 1391). The 11 Mul ti empl oyer Pensi on Pl an Amendments Act of 1980 (the “MPPAA”) sets forth 12 rul es for cal cul ating a wi thdrawi ng empl oyer’s share of a pl an’s underfundi ng. 13 Pursuant to the MPPAA, “[i ]f an empl oyer wi thdraws from a mul ti empl oyer 14 pl an . . . the empl oyer i s l i abl e to the pl an i n the amount determi ned under thi s 15 part to be the wi thdrawall i abi l i ty.” 29 U.S.C . § 1381(a). “Wi thdrawall i abi l i ty i s 16 the wi thdrawi ng empl oyer’s proporti onate share of the pensi on pl an’s unfunded 17 vested benefi ts.” Honerkamp, 692 F.3d at 130.

41 Pursuant to Secti o n 4211 of ERISA, a pl an may sel ect one of four i denti fi ed 2 al l ocati on methods or devel op i ts own method for cal cul ating UVBs, subject to 3 approvalby the Pensi on Benefi t Guaranty C orporati on (“PBGC ” ). 29 U.S.C . § 4 1391. C ri ti calto the present di spute, Secti on 1391 of the MPPAA di rects pl ans to 5 cal cul ate the wi thdrawalcharge, not as of the date of wi thdrawalor someti me 6 l ater, but as of the l ast day of the pl an year precedi ng the year duri ng whi ch the 7 empl oyer wi thdrew. Thi s date coul d be up to a year earl i er. Mi l waukee Brewery 8 Workers’ Pensi on Pl an v. Joseph Schl i tz Brewi ng C o., 513 U.S. 414, 417-18 (1995) 9 (ci ting §§ 1391(b)(2)(A)(i i ) , (b)(2)(E)(i ), (c)(2)(C )(i ), (c)(3)(A), and (c)(4)(A)). The 10 l ast day of the pl an year precedi ng the year duri ng whi ch the empl oyer 11 wi thdraws i s referred to as the “Measurement Date.” Because appel l ant 12 wi thdrew from the Pl an on May 16, 2014, the appl i cabl e Measurement Date i s 13 December 31, 2013. 14 Of the many actuary assumpti ons necessary to cal cul ate wi thdrawal 15 l i abi l i ty, onl ythe i nterest rate assumpti o n i s at i ssue i n thi s matter. To determine 16 an empl oyer’s wi thdrawall i abi l i ty, a pl an’s actuary must esti mate the present 17 val ue of the pl an’s vested benefi ts and the i nterest rate necessary to di scount the 18 l i abi l i ty for future benefi t payments. See C ombs v. C l assi c C oalC o rp., 931 F.2d

51 96, 98 (D.C . C i r. 1991). Because the i nterest rate assumpti on governs the esti mate 2 of a pl an’s growth from i nvestments apart from empl oyers’ future contributi ons, 3 increasi ng the i nterest rate assumpti on decreases an empl oyer’s wi thdrawal 4 l i abi l i ty, and vi ce versa. See i d. ERISA Secti on 4213(a) requi res wi thdrawal 5 l i abi l i ty to be based on “reasonabl e” actuari alassumpti ons and methods, “taki ng 6 into account the experi ence of the pl an and reasonabl e expectati ons,” and to be 7 “the actuary’s best esti mate of anti ci pated experi ence under the pl an.” 29 U.S.C . 8 § 1393(a)(1). 9 Buck C onsul tants (“Buck”) served as appel l ees’ actuary for many years. 10 In October 2013, appel l ees repl aced Buck wi th Hori z on Actuari a lServi ces, LLC begi nni ng i n 2014. For several years before i ts termi nati on as the Pl an’s actuary, 11 12 Buck uti l i zed a 7.25% i nterest rate assumpti o n to determi ne the Fund’s UVBs. 13 The Pl an’s 2013 Form 5500 Schedul e MB, 1 states that a 7.25% i nterest rate 14 assumpti on remai ned i n pl ace i n 2013 for purposes of determi ni ng UVBs. At a 7.25% i nterest rate, appel l ant’s wi thdrawall i abi l i ty woul d have been $254,644. 15

1 A Form 5500 i s an annualreport, fi l ed wi th the Uni ted States Department of Labor, for an empl oyee benefi t pl an. Schedul e MB i s the porti on of the Form 5500 that provi des actuari ali nformati on for a defi ned benefi t pensi on fund and i s compl eted by the fund’s actuary. 6In June 2014, however, Hori zon i nformed the Trustees that the i nterest rate 1 assumpti on for purposes of wi thdrawall i abi l i ty was reduced from 7.25% to 2 approxi m atel y3.25%. 2 A t a 3.25% i nterest rate, appel l ant’s wi thdrawall i abi l i ty 3 was cal cul ated to be $997,734. The Fund appl i ed the revi sed i nterest rate to 4 cal cul ate appel l ant’s wi thdrawall i abi l i ty at the hi gher fi gure. Appel l ant then 5 commenced the arbi trati on proceedi ng that l ed to thi s appeal

. 6 7 The parti es agreed that “a prel i minary i ssue” rel ating to “the i nterest rate 8 assumpti on used by the Fund to cal cul ate [Metz’s] wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty” woul d 9 “be presented for rul ing on the basi s of wri tten sti pul ati ons and bri efi ng.” App’x 10 at 22-23. 11 On February 22, 2016, Arbi trator Jaffe i ssued an “Interi mAward” hol di ng 12 that appel l ees’ retroacti v e appl i cati on of the PBGC rate to cal cul ate appel l ant’s 13 wi thdrawall i abi l i ty was i mproper. It stated: 14 The Fund’s asserti on that the Fund Actuary had not ma d e a n y 15 interest rate assumpti on determi nati on as of December 31, 2013, for

2 The documents i n the record refl ecti ng thi s change rel ate onl yto wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty, and i tappears that no change was made as to the assumed i nterest rate for other purposes. If so, the change i ncreased the l i abi l i ty onl y for wi thdrawi ng empl oyers whi l e l eavi ng the contributi ons of remai ni ng empl oyers unchanged. In vi ew of our di sposi ti on of thi s matter and the l ack of an expl i ci tfi ndi ng, thi s i ssue i s not di sposi ti ve. 71 purposes of cal cul ating the F u nd’s [UVBs] for wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty i s 2 rejected. MPPAA requi res that the assumpti ons and methods in effect 3 on December 3 1, 2013, be used for cal cul a t i n g the E mpl oyer’s 4 wi thdr awal l i abi l i ty. Absent some change by the Fund actuari es, the 5 exi sting assumpti ons and methods remai ned i n pl ace as of December 6 31, 2013. 7 8 App’x at 37. 9 Accordi ngl y, the Recal cul ati on of Wi thdrawal L i abi l i ty reduced appel l ant’s 10 wi thdrawall i abi l i ty from $997,734 to $254,644. 11 On March 31, 2016, appel l ees brought the present acti on pursuant to 12 Secti o n 4221(b)(2) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C . § 1401(b)(2), seeki ng to modi fy and/ or 13 vacate the arbi trator’s Fi nalAward. On May 4, 2016, appel l ant fi l ed a 14 countercl ai m, seeki ng enforcement of the Fi nalAward. On March 27, 2017, the 15 di stri ct court vacated the Fi nalAward, hol di ng that “ERISA does not requi re 16 actuari es to make wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty assumpti ons by the measurement date.” 17 App’x at 283, 289-90. Accordi ng to the di stri ct court, “the wi thdrawall i abi l i ty 18 interest rate assumpti o n i n effect on the Measurement Date i s not appl i cabl e to 19 the upcoming pl an year unl ess the actuary affi rmati vel y determi nes that the 20 assumpti on . . . i s reasonabl e and her best esti mate of anti ci pated experi ence

81 under the pl an as of the Measurement Date.” App’x at 279 (emphasi s i n 2 ori ginal ) . 3 On Apri l25, 2017, appel l ant ti mel y appeal ed. 4 DISC USSION 5 We revi ew an arbi trator’s l egalconcl usi ons made under Secti on 4221 of 6 ERISA de novo. See HOP Energy, L.L.C . v. Local553 Pensi on Fund, 678 F.3d 158, 7 160 (2d C i r. 2012). By contrast, factualfi ndi ngs made by an arbi trator enjoy a 8 “presumpti on of correctness.” See ERISA Secti on 4221(c), 29 U.S.C . § 1401(c) 9 (“[T]here shal l be a presumpti on, rebuttabl e onl y by a cl ear preponderance of the 10 evi dence, that the fi ndi ngs of fact made by the arbi trator were correct.”); 11 Si gmund C ohn C orp. v. Di st. No. 15 Machi ni sts Pensi on Fund, 804 F. Supp. 490, 12 493 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (“C ourts revi ewing arbi trati o n awards have consi stentl y 13 uphel d the arbi t rator’s factualfi ndi ngs under secti on 4221(c)’s ‘presumpti on of 14 correctness.’”). 15 The parti es use copi ous amounts of ink i n argument over what are the 16 arbi t rator’s l egali nterpretati ons of the MPPAA and what are hi s factualfi ndi ngs. 17 Much of thi s argumentati on i s i rrel evant because the l egalargument i s deci si ve 18 on the undi sputed facts. That i ssue i s whether, under the MPPAA, a fund may

91 sel ect an i nterest rate assumpti on after the Measurement Date and retroacti vel y 2 appl y that assumpti on to wi thdrawall i abi l i ty cal cul ati ons. Appel l ant’s 3 wi thdrawalfrom the Pl an on May 16, 2014 caused December 31, 2013 to be the 4 Measurement Date. As a factual matter, i ti s not seri ousl ycontested that the 5 interest assumpti o n as of that date was 7.25%. Appel l ees sel ected the revi sed rate 6 no earl i er than June 2014, cl ai ming that rate to be proper for the earl i er 7 Measurement Date. 8 As the arbi trator’s award states, “there i s no di spute that Hori zon di d not 9 adopt the PBGC rates as the i nterest rate assumpti on for wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty 10 purposes unti lsome ti m e i n 2014,” after the Measurement Date of December 31, 11 2013. App’x at 37. The arbi trator stated that the Fund’s “deci si on to appl y [a] 12 changed assumpti on [rate] retroacti vel y so as to i ncrease the wi thdrawall i abi l i ty 13 assessed to [Metz] and other empl oyers who wi thdrew from the Fund after 14 December 31, 2013, was vi ol a ti ve of MPPAA.” App’x at 37. Whi l e the statement 15 of the Fund’s acti on i s an undi sputed factualfi ndi ng, the l egalconcl usi on i s 16 subject to de novo revi ew. 17 ERISA and C ongress’s gui del ines for cal cul ating an empl oyer’s wi thdrawal 18 l i abi l i ty, see Secti on 4213 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C . § 1393, are si l ent as to whether

101 interest rate assumpti o ns on the Measurement Date must be affi rmati vel y 2 adopted, or whether, absent an actuary’s affi rmati ve sel ecti on of a new 3 assumpti on rate, the rate i n effect duri ng the previ ous pl an year rol l s over 4 automati cal l y. Al though the di stri ct court hel d that “Secti on 4213 does not al l ow 5 stal e assumpti ons from the precedi ng pl an year to rol lover automati cal l y,” 6 App’x at 278, there i s no statutory or casel a w support for that proposi ti on, and 7 we do not agree wi th i t. In the context of mul ti empl oyer pensi on pl ans, i nterest 8 rate assumpti ons cannot be al tered dai l y and must have a degree of stabi l i ty. 9 Nor, i n that context, do i nterest rate assumpti o ns remai n open forever and 10 subject to retroacti ve changes i n l ater years. Indeed, the Pl an i t sel f used the 11 7.25% rate for several years and i ts annualreports to the government refl ect the 12 ongoi ng rol l over. 13 Moreover, Secti on 4214 i mposes a noti c e requi rement on mul ti empl oyer 14 funds for any pl an rul e or amendment wi th respect to wi thdrawall i abi l i ty. The 15 l egi sl a ti ve hi story demonstrates that i twas desi gned to protect empl oyers from 16 the retroacti v e appl i cati on of rul es rel ating to the cal cul ati on of wi thdrawal 17 l i abi l i ty: 18 There a r e several si tuati ons where pl ans, in the appl i cati on of

111 thei r own rul es, ei ther ini ti al l y or by amendment, are permi tted a wi de 2 degree of l ati tude in al l ocating and c al cul ating wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty. In 3 order to protect an empl oyer from certai n retroacti ve c h a n g es in a 4 pl an’s rul es, the bi l l [H.R. 3904] prohibi ts the retroacti v e appl i cati on of 5 a pl an rul e or amend m e n t r e l ating to wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty from 6 appl ying to a wi thdrawal occurri ng before i ts d ate of adopti on, unl ess 7 the empl oyer consents to i ts earl i er appl i cati on. 8 9 The bi l l al so re qu ires that pl an rul es and amendments operate 10 and be appl i ed uni forml y wi th respect to al l empl oyers e xcept to the 11 extent that l ack o f u n i formi ty woul d be requi red to t ake into account 12 empl oyers’ credi t ratings. 13 14 Under the bi l l, when a p l a n rul e or amendment affects 15 wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty, the pl an sponsor i s requi red to gi ve noti ce of the 16 adopti on of the rul e or amendment t o al l empl oyers requ i r e d to 17 contribute to the pl an and to al l empl o yee o rgani z ati ons representi ng 18 empl oyees covered by the pl an. 19 20 H.R. Rep. No. 96-869, pt. 2 at 30. 21 Al though Secti on 4214 does not defi ne “pl an rul es and amendments” and 22 Secti o n 4213 –- unl i ke Secti on 4214 –- does not speci fi cal l y address retroacti vi ty, 23 the retroacti v e sel ecti on of i nterest rate assumpti ons for purposes of wi thdrawal 24 l i abi l i ty, as endorsed by the di stri ct court, i s, therefore, i nconsi stent wi th 25 C ongress’s l egi sl ati ve i ntent. Moreover, certai n provi si ons of ERISA al l ow 26 empl oyers to request and recei ve noti ce of thei r esti mated wi thdrawall i abi l i ty 27 pri or to actual ly wi thdrawi ng from a fund. For exampl e, Secti on 101 provi des

121 that “[t]he pl an sponsor or admi ni strator of a mul ti empl oyer pl an shal l, upon 2 wri tten request, furni sh to any empl oyer who has an obl i gati on to contribute to 3 the pl an,” a “[n]oti ce of potenti alwi thdrawall i abi l i ty.” 29 U.S.C . § 1021(l )(1). The 4 pl an admini strator i s al so requi red to provi de:

(A) the esti mated amount whi ch woul d be the amount of such 5 6 empl oyer’s wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty u nder part 1 of subti tl e E of subchapter 7 III i f such empl o y e r w i thdrew on the l ast day of the pl an y ear 8 precedi ng the date of the request, and 9 (B) an expl anati on of how such esti ma t e d l i abi l i ty amount was 10 11 determi ned, incl uding the actuari al a ssumpti ons and methods used to 12 determi ne the val u e of the pl an l i abi l i ti es and assets, the data regardi ng 13 empl oyer contributi o ns, unfunded vested benefi ts, annual changes in 14 the pl an’s unfunded vested ben e f i t s , and the appl i cati on of any 15 rel evant l i mi tati ons on the esti mated wi thdrawall i abi l i ty. 16 17 29 U.S.C . § 1021(l )(1)(A), (B). Such provi si ons are of no val ue i f retroacti v e 18 19 changes i n i nterest rates assumpti ons may be made at any ti m e. 20 21 In consi deri ng the retroacti v e sel ecti o n of i nterest rate assumpti o ns, we 22 concl ude that the assumpti ons and methods used to cal cul ate the i nterest rate 23 assumpti on for purposes of wi thdrawall i abi l i ty must be those i n effect as of the 24 Measurement Date. 3 Absent a change by a Fund’s actuary before the

3 We are mi ndfulof the di stri ct court’s convi cti on that “[t]he Arbi trator incorrectl y confl ated” the terms “as of” and “i n effect.” App’x at 279. Accordi ng to that court, “the wi thdrawall i abi l i ty interest rate assumpti on i n effect on the 131 Measurement Date, the exi sti ng assumpti o ns and methods remai n i n effect. 2 Were i t otherwi se, the sel ecti on of an i nterest rate assumpti on after the 3 Measurement Date woul d create si gni fi cant opportuni ty for mani pul a ti on and 4 bi as. Nothi ng woul d prevent trustees from attempti ng to pressure actuari es to 5 assess greater wi thdrawal l i abi l i ty on recentl y wi thdrawn empl oyers than woul d 6 have been the case i f the pri or assumpti o ns and methods actual l y in pl ace on the 7 Measurement Date were used. Actuari es unwi l l ing to yi el d to trustees’ preferred 8 interest rate assumpti o ns can be repl aced by others l ess reti cent. 9 In C o ncrete Pi pe & Products of C al i forni a, Inc. v. C onstructi on Laborers 10 Pensi o n Tr., 508 U.S. 602, 632 (1993), the Supreme C ourt acknowl edged that the 11 actuary i n that case was “not, l i ke the trustees, vul nerabl e to suggesti ons of bi as 12 or i ts appearance” because “actuari es are trai ned professi onal s subject to 13 regul a tory standards.” The C ourt warned, however, that

[u]si ng di fferent assumpti ons [for di fferent purposes] coul d v ery wel l 14 15 be attacked a s presumpti vel y unreasonabl e both in a rbi t rati on and on

judi ci alrevi ew. . . . 16 Measurement Date i s not appl i cabl e to the upcoming pl an year unl ess the actuary affi rmati vel ydetermi nes that the assumpti on . . . i s reasonabl e and her best esti mate of anti c i pated experi ence under the pl an as of the Measurement Date.” App’x at 279 (emphasi s i n ori ginal ). For the reasons stated i n thi s opi ni on, however, we bel i eve the di stri ct court’s reasoni ng to be unpersuasi v e. 141 [Thi s] vi ew that the trustees are requi red to act in a r e a s o n ab l y 2 consi stent manner greatl y l i mi ts th e ir di screti o n, because the u se of 3 a s sumpti o ns overl y favorabl e to the fund in one context wi l l tend t o 4 have offsetti ng unfavorabl e consequences in other c ontexts. F or 5 exampl e, the use of assumpti ons (such as l ow interest rates) that woul d 6 tend to increase the fund’s unfunded v ested l i abi l i ty for w i thdrawal 7 l i abi l i ty purposes woul d al so make i t more di ffi cul t for the pl an t o meet 8 the mini mum funding requi rements of § 1082. 9 10 Id. at 633 (second and thi rd al terati ons i n ori ginal ) (quoting Uni ted Retai l& 11 Whol esal e Emps. Teamsters Uni o n LocalNo. 115 Pensi on Pl an v. Yahn & 12 McDonnel l, Inc., 787 F.2d 128, 146-47 (3d C i r. 1986) (Sei tz, J., di ssenti ng i n part)). 13 The opportuni ty for mani pul ati on and bi as i s parti cul arl y great where 14 funds use di fferent i nterest rate assumpti o ns for wi thdrawall i abi l i ty and 15 mini mum funding purposes. Indeed, Arbi trator Jaffe speci fi cal l y acknowl edged 16 that “[t]hi s potenti a lfor bi as to operate i s parti cul arl y great i f the changed 17 assumpti ons and methods rel ate onl y to those used to cal cul ate the [UVBs] of the 18 fund for purposes of wi thdrawall i abi l i ty and not for fundi ng or other purposes 19 (as appears to have been the case i n thi s matter).” App’x at 39-40 (emphasi s 20 added); see C oncrete Pi pe, 508 U.S. at 633 n.19 (“we are aware of at l east one case 21 in whi ch a pl an sponsor exerci sed deci si ve i nfl uence over an actuary whose 22 ini ti alassumpti ons i t di sl i ked”) (ci ting Huber v. C a sabl anca Indus., Inc., 916 F.2d

151 85, 93 (3d C i r. 1990)). Thi s appeal, therefore, i l l ustrates the type of resul ts that 2 can be “attacked as presumpti v el y unreasonabl e both i n arbi t rati o n and on 3 judi ci alrevi ew” of whi ch C oncrete Pi pe warns. C oncrete Pi pe, 508 U.S. at 633. 4 C ONC LUSION 5 We hol d that interest rate assumpti o ns for wi thdrawall i abi l i ty purposes 6 must be determi ned as of the l ast day of the year precedi ng the empl oyer’s 7 wi thdrawalfrom a mul ti empl oyer pensi on pl an. Absent any change to the 8 previ ous pl an year’s assumpti on made by the Measurement Date, the i nterest 9 rate assumpti on i n pl ace from the previ ous pl an year wi l lrol l over automati cal ly. 10 The judgment of the di stri ct court i s vacated, and the case i s remanded 11 wi th di recti ons to enter judgment for the appel l ant and to remand any remai ni ng 12 i ssues to Arbi t rator Jaffe. 13 14

16