CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amalgamated Insurance Fund v. William B. Kessler, Inc.

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision concerning the priority status of a "withdrawal liability" claim. Amalgamated Insurance Fund, a multiemployer retirement fund, appealed the ruling that its claim against Kessler, a clothing manufacturer in Chapter 11, was a general unsecured claim rather than an administrative expense. Kessler had ceased operations during bankruptcy, triggering the withdrawal liability under MPPAA. The District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that withdrawal liability, which represents a share of unfunded vested liability accrued prior to bankruptcy, is not an administrative expense. The court distinguished withdrawal liability from severance pay, which it considered an administrative expense when termination occurs during bankruptcy.

BankruptcyWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpenseERISAMPPAAPension PlansUnfunded Vested LiabilityPriority ClaimSeverance PayChapter 11
References
8
Case No. 09 Civ. 8139
Regular Panel Decision

Lopresti v. Pace Press, Inc.

The plaintiff, Patrick LoPresti, as Trustee of the ALA-Lithographic Industry Pension Plan, brought an action against Pace Press, Inc. and other defendants, seeking to recover withdrawal liability under ERISA. The plaintiff alleged that a principal purpose of the asset sale transaction between Pace Press and DG3 North America, Inc. was to evade or avoid withdrawal liability. Following a non-jury trial, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that evasion of withdrawal liability was a principal purpose of the sale or its structure. The Court concluded that the primary motivation for the sale was to avert Pace Press's bankruptcy and the Principals' personal guaranty liabilities, and that the transaction's structure served legitimate business objectives. Consequently, the Court denied the plaintiff's claim to recover withdrawal liability.

ERISA Withdrawal LiabilityMultiemployer Pension PlanAsset Purchase AgreementEvade or Avoid LiabilityCorporate BankruptcyPersonal GuarantiesSecured CreditorsUnsecured Creditors PoolBusiness ValuationEmployment Agreements
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Local 531 Pension Fund v. Flexwrap Corp.

The Board of Trustees of the Local 531 Pension Fund filed for summary judgment against Flexwrap Corp. to collect withdrawal liability under ERISA, following Flexwrap's cessation of contributions in 1997 due to a mass withdrawal. Flexwrap failed to make the required quarterly payments for its withdrawal liability, resulting in a default under the Plan Rules and ERISA. Despite notification and an admission of debt, Flexwrap neither cured the default nor initiated arbitration to dispute the liability amount. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Pension Fund, ordering Flexwrap to pay the outstanding withdrawal liability, accrued interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation costs.

ERISAMultiemployer Pension PlanWithdrawal LiabilitySummary JudgmentPension FundDefault JudgmentAttorneys Fees AwardLitigation CostsLiquidated DamagesUnpaid Contributions
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kessler

William B. Kessler, Inc. (Kessler), a clothing manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Kessler was party to collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to a Multi-employer Pension Plan (MPP). Upon cessation of operations, a withdrawal liability became due to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union ('the Union'). The Union filed several claims for this withdrawal liability, seeking administrative priority status. Kessler objected, arguing that the withdrawal liability was based on pre-petition services and did not qualify as an administrative expense under Bankruptcy Code § 507(a)(1). The court sustained Kessler's objection, expunging duplicative claims and reclassifying the remaining withdrawal liability claim as a general unsecured claim, concluding it was not entitled to administrative status.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementMulti-employer Pension PlanMPPAWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpensesPriority ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSeverance Pay
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sigmund Cohn Corp. v. District No. 15 MacHinists Pension Fund Ex Rel. Board of Trustees

This case involves a dispute over an employer's withdrawal liability from a multiemployer pension plan under ERISA and MPPAA. Petitioner Sigmund Cohn Corporation challenged the assessment of withdrawal liability by the Board of Trustees of the District No. 15 Machinists Pension Fund, which an arbitrator subsequently deemed 'clearly erroneous.' The District Court confirmed the arbitrator's award, agreeing that the Fund had improperly applied the direct attribution method of calculating liability because the plan's amendment process had not been formally completed at the time of Sigmund Cohn's withdrawal. Consequently, the court ordered the Fund to recalculate Sigmund Cohn's withdrawal liability using the statutory presumptive method. However, the court denied Sigmund Cohn's request for attorney's fees, finding no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Fund.

ERISAMPPAAWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanArbitration AwardFund AmendmentStatutory Presumptive MethodDirect Attribution MethodAttorney FeesFiduciary Duty
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.H. Cobb Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

F.H. Cobb Co., a subsidiary of Super Food Services Inc., filed an action seeking a declaration of non-liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) concerning withdrawal liability to the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. The MPPAA retroactively imposed liability for employers withdrawing on or after April 29, 1980. F.H. Cobb had ceased its primary wholesale distribution business by March 8, 1980, and retained a minimal workforce for only phase-out activities until May 16, 1980, with final pension contributions in May 1980. The court analyzed whether this constituted a 'complete withdrawal' prior to the MPPAA's effective date, concluding that the phase-out work did not negate the earlier cessation of covered operations. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring F.H. Cobb's non-liability under the MPPAA's withdrawal provisions.

MPPAAwithdrawal liabilitymultiemployer pension plancessation of operationssummary judgmentretroactive legislationpension contributionsphase-out workemployer obligationsplan funding
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2009

Amalgamated Lithographers of America v. Unz & Co.

The Amalgamated Lithographers of America Lithographic Industry Pension Plan (the Plan) sued Unz & Co., Inc. (Unz) for withdrawal liability under ERISA and MPPAA. The Plan sought summary judgment, which Unz opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment or to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after Scott Printing Corp., a company under common control with Unz, withdrew from the Plan in 2003, incurring a withdrawal liability of $765,474. The court found that Unz received adequate notice of the liability in May 2008, despite Unz's arguments about the adequacy of notice and the timeliness of arbitration demands. The court ruled that Unz had forfeited its right to contest the liability amount or demand arbitration due to its failure to comply with statutory deadlines. Consequently, the Plan's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Unz's cross-motion was denied, making Unz liable for the full withdrawal liability plus interest and liquidated damages.

ERISAMPPAAPension PlanWithdrawal LiabilityMultiemployer PlanSummary JudgmentCommon ControlEquitable TollingLachesArbitration
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pulaski Highway Express, Inc.

This case addresses whether a multiemployer pension plan's withdrawal liability claim against a Chapter 11 debtor is entitled to administrative expense priority. Pulaski Highway Express (PHE) filed for Chapter 11 relief, and Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund subsequently sought administrative status for its withdrawal liability claim. The court determined that withdrawal liability must be apportioned into pre- and post-petition components. While the pre-petition portion is treated as an unsecured claim, the post-petition portion, attributable to services during the debtor-in-possession period, may qualify for administrative expense priority. Further proceedings are necessary to precisely allocate the liability and apply the relevant bankruptcy code sections.

BankruptcyChapter 11Pension PlansWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpensesPriority ClaimsMultiemployer PlansEmployee BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-Possession
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of Amalgamated Insurance Fund v. Saltz

The Trustees of the Amalgamated Insurance Fund sued Nathan and Jack Saltz for ERISA pension plan withdrawal liability. The Saltzes were the sole shareholders of Frank Saltz & Sons, Inc., which ceased operations and failed to pay its withdrawal liability. The Fund sought to collect from the Saltzes personally, arguing they were part of a common control group due to their net lease of property to the Corporation. The court determined that the Saltzes' rental activity constituted a 'trade or business' for ERISA purposes, making them liable for the Corporation's withdrawal liability. Consequently, the Fund's motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAMPPAAPension PlanWithdrawal LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon Control GroupNet LeaseTrade or BusinessCorporate LiabilityDistrict Court
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,597 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational