On May 18, 2021, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released much-anticipated guidance on premium subsidies for continuation coverage under Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) provided by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). For more information about the ARPA and COBRA subsidies, see Stinson’s previous blog: American Rescue Plan Act Contains
Understanding Employee Benefits and key developments in the employee benefits field and items of interest to our clients. MORE
Multi-employer Plans
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT CONTAINS MANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS RELATED PROVISIONS
On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the “ARPA”) into law. Many of the provisions in this sweeping legislation bring changes to the employee benefits world of which employers should take note and which are summarized below.
Subsidized COBRA
The ARPA contains several new rules which impact COBRA…
Multiemployer Pension Reform Likely on the Table in Phase 4 Coronavirus Bill
By Nick Bertron & Tom Dowling on
Since the coronavirus (COVID-19) first emerged as a serious health emergency, Congress has moved quickly to pass three major pieces of legislation designed to address the public economic and health crises caused by the pandemic. According to reports, House Democrats have prioritized multiemployer pension reform in previous negotiations regarding coronavirus relief legislation, and are likely…
Casino Group’s Gamble on Partial Withdrawal Liability Hits Jackpot
By Mark Wilkins on
Companies that contribute to multiemployer pension plans are often rightfully worried that corporate restructurings may inadvertently trigger either a complete or a partial withdrawal from the plan. A recent case out of the Third Circuit provides a helpful illustration of the partial withdrawal rules in practice. Caesar’s Entertainment Corp. v. International Union of Operating Engineers…
More Ways to be Tagged with Withdrawal Liability
By Stinson LLP on
I have written a number of posts (here, here, and here) on employers and business owners who have been held responsible for the multiemployer plan withdrawal liability of a different employer. In some cases, the liability comes from common ownership. In other cases, the liability comes because a new business is…
Could your Oil and Gas Interest Cause You to Be Responsible for Multiemployer Plan Withdrawal Liability?
By Stinson LLP on
I noticed an interesting case from the Tenth Circuit which found that a two to three percent working interest in an oil and gas venture could generate self-employment income for the owner of that interest. The individual in question entered into both a purchase agreement and an operating agreement with the operator of the oil…
More Withdrawal Liability for Unsuspecting Business Owners
By Stinson LLP on
I recently blogged about a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that tagged a buyer of the assets of a company contributing to a multiemployer plan with withdrawal liability that the seller had not paid. A recent Ninth Circuit decision reached the same conclusion in a case where an owner shut down its business, which…
More Ways to be Hit With Withdrawal Liability
By Stinson LLP on
I have blogged (here, here, here and here) in the past about situations where employers unexpectedly found themselves liable for withdrawal liability imposed by a multiemployer plan. We can add a recent case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to that list. Tsareff v. Manweb Services, Inc. involved a multiemployer…
Another Way to Become Personally Liable to a Multiemployer Plan
By Stinson LLP on
I have blogged in the past about individuals and businesses that are not signatories to a collective bargaining agreement being found liable for withdrawal liability imposed by multiemployer pension plans (plans jointly trusteed by union and management trustees for the benefit of a number of unionized employers). Withdrawal liability is imposed when an employer exits …
What is a Trade or Business and Why Does it Matter – Part 3
By Stinson LLP on
I blogged last year (here and here) about a couple of decisions in which courts concluded that various related companies were part of a controlled group of trades or businesses and therefore liable for the withdrawal liability of one of the companies. As I mentioned in earlier blogs, the courts have noted that …