Fletch

Thank you, Peter! I have seen the NY Times case and it will no doubt be very useful to my client. I'm also aware of the Concrete Pipe case (this is a Supreme Court case that touches on the constitutional issue and I suspect the case you were alluding to in your email). And, I am also familiar with the Chicago Truck Drivers v. CPC Logistics case from 2012 (which found fault in that the Segal Blend, used to calculate liability, was not based on the actuary's best estimate). If you are aware of any other cases on this point, would you mind sharing? It would be most appreciated. And, if there are any actuaries out there interested in talking with us about the reasonableness of the assumptions used, we would love to hear from you! Fletch

Client asked for withdrawal liability estimates for a number of years preceding withdrawal from multi-employer pension plan. The plan used the same rate to calculate liabilities (including estimates of withdrawal liability) and minimum funding for years prior to withdrawal. Upon withdrawal, the discount rate used to calculate the liabilities was changed from 7% to the PBGC rate and the liability skyrocketed. The rate for funding purposes stayed at 7%. The plan has had similar funding ratios, etc. for several years and there are no obvious signs as to why such a large discount rate change is warranted. We would like to talk to an actuary experienced in calculating withdrawal liability who can assess the reasonableness of the assumptions employed. All references greatly appreciated!