Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-pension fund’s motion for summary judgment against defendants-owners of entity withdrawing from pension fund, where plaintiff sought to collect $221,932.55 in “withdrawal liability” from withdrawing entity, as well as from its owners, whom plaintiff claimed had participated in trade or business with withdrawing entity under circumstances where entity and its owners were under common control. Record showed that withdrawing entity was conducting its business rent-free on property owned by instant owners, and under Nagy, 714 F.3d 545, leasing property to withdrawing employer is categorically “trade or business” for purposes of establishing withdrawal liability under 29 USC section 1301(b)(1). Ct. also rejected owners’ claim that their ownership of property that was used by withdrawing entity was only passive investment that would not subject them to withdrawal liability, where Ct. found that owners’ rent-free leasing activity with withdrawing entity was simply extension of business operations of withdrawing entity and was means to fractionalize assets of withdrawing entity.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
ERISA