April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 15, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Seventh Circuit Rejects “Big Buyer” Defense to Successor Liability

For a multiemployer pension fund to hold an asset purchaser liable for withdrawal liability as a successor-in-interest, the fund must establish that the purchaser was (i) on notice of the seller’s withdrawal liability, and (ii) the purchaser “substantially continued” the seller’s operations.  In Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Benefit Fund v. ManWeb Servs., No. 16-cv-2840, 2018 WL 1250471 (7th Cir. Mar. 12, 2018), the Seventh Circuit rejected the purchaser’s so-called “big buyer” defense that it did not substantially continue the seller’s business because the seller’s operations made up only a small proportion of the purchaser’s operations.  In so ruling, the Court explained that the appropriate inquiry was the extent to which the purchaser continues the seller’s business after the asset purchase, which required an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances.  Here, the Court observed that the “big buyer” defense would allow a large buyer that continued its predecessor’s business under a different name to escape liability simply because of its size, contrary to the goals of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“MPPAA”) to protect multiemployer plans from the damaging consequences of employer withdrawals.  In rejecting the “big buyer” defense, the Seventh Circuit distinguished as outdated an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit in Resilient Floor Covering Pension Tr. Fund Bd. of Trustees v. Michael’s Floor Covering, Inc., 801 F.3d 1079, 1098 (9th Cir. 2015), which had held that the appropriate inquiry was whether a majority of the buyer’s workforce consisted of the seller’s former employees.

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Anthony S Cacace, Labor and Employment attorney, Proskauer Rose law firm
Associate

Anthony S. Cacace is an Associate in the Labor and Employment Department and a member of the Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation & ERISA Litigation Practice Center. Anthony focuses on ERISA litigation and counsels plans and plan sponsors on a full spectrum of employee benefit issues.

Anthony represents employers, plan sponsors, plan trustees and other plan fiduciaries in lawsuits brought pursuant to ERISA, alleging claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, benefit claim denials, plan investment losses and improper plan amendments. He also represents plan clients during...

212-969-3307
Neil Shah, Proskauer Rose, Labor Rights Lawyer, ERISA Litigation Attorney,
Associate

Neil Shah is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation & ERISA Litigation Practice Center.

Rutgers University School of Law, Newark, J.D., 2009

 

cum laude

Order of the Coif

Managing Editor, Rutgers Law Review

Dean's Merit Scholarship

 

New York University, College of Arts & Science, B.A., 2006                                                                          

973-274-3205