Seventh Circuit Upholds Arbitrator’s Reduction of Withdrawal Liability
An arbitrator's decision to significantly reduce the amount of withdrawal liability assessed against an employer that had withdrawn from a multiemployer pension plan was affirmed in a recent opinion from the Seventh Circuit.
In 2005, the employer withdrew from a multiemployer pension plan and, because the plan was substantially underfunded, the employer was assessed a withdrawal liability of more than $3.4 million. The employer contested the amount of the liability through arbitration proceedings. It argued that the assumptions and interest rates used by the plan's trustees were unreasonable, causing an unwarranted increase in the amount assessed upon the withdrawal. The arbitrator agreed, and ruled that the plan had overassessed the amount of the withdrawal liability by more than $1 million.
The plan appealed the arbitrator's decision to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which upheld the decision. The plan then appealed to the Seventh Circuit. In a colorful opinion--for ERISA lawyers, at least — noting the complexity of this area of the law, Judge Posner found that the interest rates used by the plan's trustees to determine the employer's withdrawal liability were different from the interest rates that were the "best estimate" of the plan's actuaries. As a result, the amount of the assessment was overstated. The Seventh Circuit rejected the plan's argument that the interest rates it used were protected by a statutory safe harbor, and affirmed the district court's ruling.
Employers that are subject to withdrawal liability after exiting a multiemployer pension plan should be careful to examine the assumptions underlying the assessment, keeping in mind strict statutory deadlines for challenging the amount assessed.
For more information read Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund v. CPC Logistics, Inc..
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

