Source: http://openjurist.org/982/f2d/857/crown-cork-seal-company-inc-v-central-states-southeast-and-southwest-areas-pension-fund
Timestamp: 2015-07-30 18:30:15
Document Index: 196240248

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1383', '§ 1399', '§ 1399', '§ 1399', '§ 1401', '§ 1401', '§ 1401']

982 F2d 857 Crown Cork Seal Company Inc v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund | OpenJurist
982 F. 2d 857 - Crown Cork Seal Company Inc v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund Home
982 F2d 857 Crown Cork Seal Company Inc v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund 982 F.2d 857
CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC.v.CENTRAL STATES SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, aFederal multiemployer employee pension benefit plan; LoranW. Robbins; Marion M. Winstead; Robert C. Sansone; RobertJ. Baker; Howard McDougall; Arthur H. Bunte; R. JerryCook and R.V. Pulliam, its present trustees in theirfiduciary capacity(ies) (D.C. Civil No. 84-05737).Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund,a pension trust; Marion M. Winstead; Robert C. Sansone;Robert J. Baker; Howard McDougall; Arthur H. Bunte, Jr.;R. Jerry Cook; R.V. Pulliam, Sr.; Harold D. Leu, its present trusteesv.CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. (D.C. Civil No. 91-04423),Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund,a pension trust, and its trustees, including Marion M.Winstead, Robert C. Sansone, Robert J. Baker, HowardMcDougall, Arthur H. Bunte, Jr., R. Jerry Cook, R.V.Pulliam, Sr. and Harold D. Leu, Appellants.
Argued Nov. 16, 1992.Decided Dec. 23, 1992.Sur Petition for Rehearing Jan. 19, 1993.
In this appeal we must interpret the term, a "binding agreement to withdraw," within the meaning of Section 558(d) of DEFRA and must determine whether a cessation of virtually all covered operations satisfies the complete withdrawal requirement of § 1383(a)(2) of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act ("MPPAA") to ERISA.
In a letter dated October 26, 1983, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(1), the Pension Fund sent Crown Cork a notice and demand for the payment of withdrawal liability in the amount of $31,802.75 monthly, beginning January 1, 1984 or alternatively as a lump sum amount of $1,319,859.30 (based upon a withdrawal date of November 28, 1981). On December 20, 1983 the Pension Fund sent Crown Cork a "past due" notice. Subsequently, on December 30, 1983, Crown Cork requested that the Pension Fund review its withdrawal liability determination in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(2)(A). On March 23, 1984, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(2)(B), the Pension Fund responded to Crown Cork's review request.
On July 14, 1989, we held that Crown Cork's DEFRA claim should be submitted to arbitration before being subject to judicial review. Accordingly, we reversed the order granting Crown Cork summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court for entry of an order to "defer the matter to arbitration" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1) (1982). Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc. v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 881 F.2d 11, 19-20 (3d Cir.1989) ("Crown Cork I").
The district court had jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1401(b)(2)(1988) (any party to an arbitration proceeding can request judicial review no later than thirty days after issuance of an arbitrator's award in appropriate federal district court). In such cases, the district court presumes that the arbitrator's factual findings are correct unless they are rebutted by a clear preponderance of the evidence. 29 U.S.C. § 1401(c); Huber v. Casablanca Industries, 916 F.2d 85, 89 (3d Cir.1990), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 1991). The arbitrator's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id.
We have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments of district courts purs