Summary
finding that plan sponsors have discretion to pick among the four suggested methods for determining withdrawal liability, to determine the appropriate discount rates, and to decide whether an employer falls under one of several statutory exemptions
Summary of this case from The Trustees of the Amalgamated Ins. v. Crown ClothOpinion
No. 86-231.
Argued April 27, 1987 Decided May 18, 1987
Together with No. 86-253, United Retail Wholesale Employees Teamsters Union Local No. 115 Pension Plan et al. v. Yahn McDonnell, Inc., et al., also on appeal from the same court.
787 F.2d 128, affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Gary M. Ford argued the cause for appellants in both cases. With him on the briefs for appellant in No. 86-231 were Peter H. Gould, David F. Power, Kenneth S. Geller, Kathryn A. Oberly, and Mitchell L. Strickler. Richard H. Markowitz and Paula R. Markowitz filed briefs for appellants in No. 86-253.
Carl L. Taylor argued the cause for appellees in both cases. With him on the brief were Glenn Summers and William H. Ewing.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in No. 86-231 were filed for the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans by Gerald M. Feder, David R. Levin, and Nik B. Edes; and for the Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America 1950 and 1974 Pension Plans by Israel Goldowitz.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance in both cases were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States by Stephen A. Bokat and Robin S. Conrad; and for Flying Tiger Line Inc., et al. by Douglas D. Broadwater, R. Franklin Balotti, Jesse A. Finkelstein, William W. Bowser, and Lawrence M. Nagin.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.