Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Burton Slotky

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that it was appropriate for the district court to resolve the question when “[tjhere is no more evidence to put in”
• suggesting that a stay “violation might of course expose the violator to contempt proceedings, as with any other violation of a judicial order.”
• explaining that given § 1451 expressly assimilates failures to satisfy withdrawal liability to violations of 29 U.S.C. § 1145, the award of additional amounts are mandatory
• noting that, even if an ERISA demand letter violated a bankruptcy stay, the consequence would be that “that the pension plan could not proceed against [the employer] unless the bankruptcy judge lifted the stay”
• explaining that such control group membership is limited to “persons engaged in trades or businesses” to “protect the owners of the corporation from having to dig into their pockets to make good the withdrawal liability of their corporations”
• addressing notice and fairness concerns regarding “people who had absolutely no reason to believe that they might be deemed members of a controlled group,” and finding that “the requirements of due process [we]re met” in that case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).