Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Distress Terminations of Underfunded Pension Plans

By James L. Hauser
October 28, 2005

Recent bankruptcies in the airline industry have highlighted the liabilities associated with underfunded defined benefit pension plans. Debtors seeking to restructure and reorganize into viable entities have to make difficult business decisions related to their sponsorship of defined benefit pension plans. The future funding costs and investment risks associated with continued sponsorship of underfunded defined benefit pension plans make pension plans a central issue in large Chapter 11 cases. In some recent Chapter 11 cases, the pension underfunding has exceeded several billion dollars (eg, the underfunding associated with United Airlines various plans alone were approximately $8 billion). In an effort to shed underfunded pension plans in bankruptcy, debtors may elect to seek a 'distress termination' of their plans. Prior to Congress' amendment of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in 1986, plan sponsors had an unrestricted right to terminate pension plans at any time by providing advance notice to the PBGC. The 1986 amendments to ERISA restricted the ability of debtors to unilaterally terminate pension plans with unfunded benefits. Thereafter, debtors must pursue a distress termination if they wish to terminate an underfunded pension plan in bankruptcy. A distress termination is in contrast to a standard termination where there are sufficient plan assets to fund the promised pension benefits or an involuntary termination instituted by the PBGC.

Under ERISA Section 4041(c)(2)(B), if one of four tests are met by the contributing sponsor and each member of the contributing sponsor's controlled group as of the proposed termination date, then a distress termination of the pension plan will be permitted. For purposes of this article, I focus on distress terminations sought in a Chapter 11 case, referred to as the reorganization test, rather than Chapter 7 liquidation. In a Chapter 11 case, the debtor must prove that unless the pension plan is terminated, it will be unable to: 1) pay all of its debts pursuant to a plan of reorganization; and 2) continue in business outside Chapter 11 reorganization.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.