Bloomberg BNA's Pension & Benefits Blog is a special resource offered by Bloomberg BNA to provide commentary and insight on news and trends reported in our publications: Pension & Benefits Daily, Pension & Benefits Reporter, and the Benefits Practice Resource Center. The authors of the blog are members of our Benefits Practice Resource Advisory Board and members of staff (who contribute summaries of some of their recent stories).
The ideas presented here are those of individuals, and Bloomberg BNA bears no responsibility for the appropriateness or accuracy of the communications between group members. We reserve the right not to post comments that are abusive or otherwise objectionable.
Communications regarding the Pension & Benefits Blog may be directed to Dana Domone via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
The employer mistakenly paid the
contributions to the funds for work performed by its employees on projects that
were outside the jurisdiction of the applicable collective bargaining
agreement. The employer ceased making any CBA-required contributions after the
funds determined that the employer was not entitled to credit for the
The funds filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in November 2010,
seeking to recover unpaid and untimely contributions under ERISA Section
502(g)(2). Park-Mark argued that a setoff should be applied to any recovery the
funds received and later included a counterclaim seeking restitution. The funds
later moved for summary judgment.
In November 2011, the district court
recognized that a federal common-law cause of action exists for overpayments
mistakenly made under ERISA but determined that “equity did not demand a
refund” of Park-Mark's overpayment and Park-Mark appealed.
Judge Bobby E. Shepherd, writing for
the court, determined that the employer demonstrated that it mistakenly made
the overpayments but failed to demonstrate that restitution was equitable.
The appeals court concluded that
equity did not favor refunding Park-Mark's overpayments and affirmed the
district court decision.
to post a comment.
Fourth Circuit: No Deferential Review Despite Plan's ‘Satisfactory to Us' Language
IRS Not Out to Trap Employers That Make Plan Adjustments Post-Windsor, Official Says
Treasury Tackling Final Issues Under the ACA, Agency Official Says
Solicitor General Asks High Court to Strike Pro-Fiduciary Presumption of Prudence
DOL Lists Fiduciary Re-Proposal, Project On Brokerage Windows on Regulatory Agenda