Opinion ID: 196507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interim Payment of the Fund's Demand

Text: -11- The district court held that Giroux's claims of hardship were insufficient to avoid meeting its statutory obligation to make interim payments of the Fund's demand pending ultimate resolution of its withdrawal liability dispute. 29 U.S.C. 1399(c)(2).4 See Debreceni v. Merchants Terminal Corp., 889 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1989); Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Mar-Len, Inc., 30 F.3d 621, 624 (5th Cir. 1994). Giroux contended that the Fund's claim would most certainly be found barred by 1451(f), and that meeting these payments would require a partial liquidation of its assets and employee layoffs, hence the court therefore abused its discretion in failing to suspend payment. We have already disposed of Giroux's first contention; we turn to the second. The MPPAA indisputably creates a pay now, dispute later mechanism, deeming the protection of multi-employer pension plans and their beneficiaries paramount. See id. at 624 (citing cases); Debreceni, 889 F.2d at 5. This scheme 4. This section states, in relevant part: Withdrawal liability shall be payable in accordance with the schedule set forth by the plan sponsor under subsection (b)(1) of this section beginning no later than 60 days after the date of the demand notwithstanding any request for review or appeal of determinations of the amount of such liability or of the schedule. 29 U.S.C. 1399(c)(2) (emphasis added). -12- puts payment ahead of decision even though the employer might prevail in the end.5 Trustees of Chicago Truck Drivers Pension Fund v. Central Transp., Inc., 935 F.2d 114, 118 (7th Cir. 1991). Although we have therefore held that assessed interim liability payment must be paid . . . notwithstanding a pending arbitrable dispute, Debreceni, 889 F.2d at 4, we have never squarely decided whether an equitable exception exists.6 Id. at 7. However, in light of the clear congressional intent to protect multi-employer pension plans in withdrawal liability disputes, we have indicated that should an equitable exception exist it would require no less than the threat of imminent insolvency. Id. at 7 and n. 6. Giroux's allegations, even if accepted, do not suggest such harm. Affirmed. 5. The MPPAA requires actual payment shall commence in accordance with [the schedule set forth by the plan sponsor], 29 U.S.C. 1399(c)(1)(A)(i) and (2), note 4, supra; Debreceni, 889 F.2d at 6; the plan has a right to immediate payment of any outstanding amount, plus interest, from the due date of the first payment which was not timely made, 29 U.S.C. 1399(c)(5); a plan may enforce this right, id. at 1451(a)(1); employers are entitled to recovery of any overpayment, with interest, 29 C.F.R. 2644.2(d). 6. Other circuits have held an employer may avoid interim payment only if the pension plan's claim is frivolous or not colorable. Mar-Len, 30 F.3d at 626; Trustees of Chicago Truck Drivers v. Central Transport, Inc., 935 F.2d 114, 119 (7th Cir. 1991). -13-