Pension Liabilities under Defined Benefit
and Multi-employer (Union) Plans
2018.12.05 Asset Purchasers Beware - Constructive Notice of Union Pension Plan Liability. A recent 9th Circuit decision called out a common misconception -- in the form of "incorrect legal advice" that the buyer received prior to closing -- that "[a]bsent an express assumption of liability, the Buyer does not assume the [withdrawal] liability" for a multiemployer pension plan. The decision went on to hold a private equity fund liable for $480,000 of withdrawal liability, even though all parties conceded that the purchaser had no actual notice of the liability.
The 9th Circuit began its analysis in Heavenly Hana v. Hotel Union (filed 7/1/2018) by reciting the federal common law doctrine of successor liability. Under that well-established doctrine, a purchaser of assets will become subject to the seller’s federal employment, labor, and pension liabilities if the purchaser (1) substantially continues the seller's business, and (2) has notice of the seller's federal liability.
The 9th Circuit went on to hold first that constructive notice alone could satisfy the notice requirement for successor liability, and then to hold "that Amstar [as the asset purchaser] had constructive notice because a reasonable purchaser would have discovered Ohana’s withdrawal liability." The 9th Circuit based the latter holding on the following undisputed findings, quoted here from the court's decision:
Overall, potential asset purchasers should take precautions -- early in any possible transaction -- against the risk that substantial continuation of the seller's business and workforce may trigger successor liability for its pre-closing employment, pension, and ERISA obligations. Otherwise their lack of actual notice may not suffice to save them from successor liability.
2018.03.12 Successor Liability -- "Big Buyer" Defense Fails for Asset Purchaser. For an asset purchaser to be held liable for withdrawal liability as a successor to a seller's multiemployer plan obligations, the purchaser must - (i) have had notice of the seller’s withdrawal liability, and (ii) “substantially continued” the seller’s operations. Under what some call the “big buyer” defense, purchasers have argued that they are not substantially continuing the seller’s business when those operations comprise only a small proportion of the purchaser’s post-acquistions operations. In Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Benefit Fund v. ManWeb Servs., the Seventh Circuit rejected that defense, and held that the proper inquiry focuses solely on the seller's operations, thereby hinging on the extent to which the purchaser continues the seller’s business after the asset purchase.
Copyright © Joseph Poerio. All rights reserved.