Case Explained: TRUSTEES OF THE IAM NATIONAL PENSION FUND v. M & K EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS, LLC Consolidated with 23-7149, 23-7150, 23-7151, 23-7153 23-7154 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:23-cv-00991) (No. 1:20-cv-00433) Donald J. Vogel argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were R. Jay Taylor, Jr. and James A. Eckhart 2 Myron D. Rumeld argued the cause for appellee. On the brief were Neil V. Shah, Lucas Kowalczyk, and John E Roberts

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-07

The D.C. Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case involving withdrawal liability and contribution obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the pension fund on three specific issues while affirming its rulings on others. First, regarding delinquent contributions for work performed at a Northern Illinois dealership by employees of a separate entity (ES Northern Illinois), the court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the fund. Although assuming without deciding that the National Labor Relations Board’s “single-employer” test applied, the court held that the complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to support a plausible inference that ES Summit and ES Northern Illinois were a single employer. The complaint alleged only common ownership, whereas the NLRB test requires allegations of interrelated operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership. Second, concerning the interest rate applied to ES Alsip’s withdrawal liability, the court reversed the district court’s ruling that an 18 percent interest rate amendment to the Trust Agreement could be applied retroactively to a company that had already terminated its collective-bargaining agreement. Applying the principle from *M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett* that contractual obligations generally cease upon termination of the bargaining agreement unless expressly stated otherwise, the court held that the amendment imposing higher interest liability could not bind the employer post-termination. The case was remanded to recalculate interest using the rate in effect when the collective-bargaining agreement terminated. Third, regarding the personal liability of the Bouchers for withdrawal liability based on their house-flipping activities, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the fund and affirmed the denial of summary judgment to the defendants. The court found genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the house-flipping operation constituted a “trade or business” under MPPAA’s common control provision, given the sporadic nature of the sales and lack of evidence regarding continuity, regularity, or profit-seeking intent prior to the withdrawal liability attaching. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the $1.8 million partial payment made by the defendants should be allocated to accrued interest rather than principal, applying the common-law United States Rule which permits creditors to apply partial payments to interest first absent a clear contrary agreement. The court also affirmed the findings of liability for the Sales entities as single employers with the ES entities and rejected the argument that successor liability claims against Laborforce and ESI lacked federal-question jurisdiction under *Peacock v. Thomas*. Additionally, the court held that the case was not moot despite the judgment being paid in full, as the record did not clearly establish which defendant made the payment and a live controversy remained regarding attorney’s fees.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.