United Mine Workers of America, et al v. Energy West Mining Company

Track this case

Case Number:

20-7054

Court:

Appellate - DC Circuit

Nature of Suit:

3791 Employee Retirement

Companies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. September 07, 2022

    Full DC Circ. Won't Rethink $115M Coal Pension Debt Ruling

    The full D.C. Circuit won't reconsider a panel's decision that an actuary used the wrong discount rate to find that a coal mining company owed $115 million to the United Mine Workers of America pension plan, letting the company's win in the case stand.

  2. August 08, 2022

    Union Pension Plan Wants Rehearing Of $115M Debt Ruling

    A United Mine Workers of America pension plan urged the D.C. Circuit on Monday to rethink its decision that a plan actuary used the wrong discount rate to calculate a $115 million bill sent to a coal mining company, saying the holding conflicts with a 1991 decision of the court.

  3. July 08, 2022

    DC Circ. Reverses $115M Mining Co. Pension Liability Ruling

    The D.C. Circuit granted a coal mining company's bid to alter a $115 million withdrawal liability penalty against it Friday, holding that a pension fund actuary improperly calculated how much the business owed by using a risk-free discount rate that wasn't based on actual investments in the plan.

  4. October 25, 2021

    DC Circ. Mulls Fight Over $115M Pension Withdrawal Penalty

    A D.C. Circuit judge expressed skepticism Monday over a mining company's bid to undo a lower court order affirming a pension plan's $115 million withdrawal liability penalty against it, while also casting doubts on the pension plan's defense for using low withdrawal-liability discount rates.

  5. December 07, 2020

    Mining Co. Fights $115M Pension Plan Withdrawal Penalty

    A union pension plan's arbitration award upholding a $115 million withdrawal liability penalty against a PacifiCorp subsidiary relies upon a flawed reading of federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the mining company told the D.C. Circuit on Friday, arguing "inconsistent assumptions" unlawfully inflated its withdrawal liability.