When I speak with employers about the onerous obligations under
ERISA and the court decisions that followed, I frequently tell them
that the “E” in ERISA stands for
“employee,” not employer. It’s good to keep this
in mind when navigating the statute’s
complexities—especially because courts have frequently found
ways to expand ERISA’s protections in favor of employee
benefit plans. A recent federal appeals court decision highlights
this reality, examining some often overlooked areas of the law.
While these expansions of the law are not new, this recent opinion
provides a good reminder of the current state of the law.
The 6th Circuit, covering Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and
Tennessee, recently issued its decision in PBGC vs. Findlay
Industries, Inc. Findlay was a long-standing family business
that fell upon hard times in 2009. It had offered a traditional
pension plan to its employees since 1964. In 1986, the Company
transferred some property to a trust created by its
