Oral Argument: M & K v. IAM Pension Trustees | Pension Plan Predicament

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of The IAM Pension Fund | Argument Date: 1/20/26 | Docket Link: Here

Oral Advocates:

1. For Petitioner (M&K Employee Solutions): Michael E. Kenneally, Jr., Washington, D.C.
2. For Respondent (IAM National Pension Fund): John E. Roberts, Providence, Rhode Island.
3. For United States as (Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent): Kevin J. Barber, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice.

Question Presented: Can pension plans charge higher prices using future prices, or must they stick with the original prices?

Overview: Four companies' pension withdrawal liability tripled from timing of actuarial assumption changes, creating circuit split over whether "as of" December 31st calculations require December 31st assumptions or permit retrospective professional judgment.

Posture: Arbitrators favored companies; D.C. District Court and Circuit reversed, permitting post-measurement assumption adoption with restrictions.

Main Arguments:

1. Petitioners: (1) "As of" language creates statutory deadline requiring pre-measurement assumption adoption; (2) Legislative framework expected annual assumption reviews before measurement dates; (3) Anti-manipulation principles from Section 1394 should apply to actuarial assumptions
2. Respondents: (1) "As of" establishes reference date, not completion deadline for retrospective valuations; (2) "Best estimate" requirement mandates current professional judgment over stale assumptions; (3) Standard actuarial practice permits and encourages post-measurement selection

Implications: Petitioner victory creates uniform nationwide timing deadlines for actuarial assumptions but potentially forces use of outdated professional judgments. Respondent victory maintains professional flexibility and accuracy in pension calculations but creates potential manipulation risks and planning uncertainty. Decision affects multiemployer pension withdrawals nationwide, involving billions in liability calculations. Ruling influences broader questions about statutory interpretation incorporating professional standards and temporal requirements in technical regulatory contexts.

The Fine Print:

1. 29 U.S.C. § 1391: "The amount of an employer's withdrawal liability...shall be computed...as of the end of the plan year preceding the plan year in which the withdrawal occurs"
2. 29 U.S.C. § 1393(a)(1): "actuarial assumptions and methods which...offer the actuary's best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan"

Primary Cases:

1. National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management (2020): Second Circuit held actuarial assumptions for withdrawal liability must exist by measurement date; automatic rollover applies absent timely changes
2. Concrete Pipe & Products v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust (1993): Withdrawal liability creates "fixed and certain debt"; actuarial determinations receive presumption of correctness due to professional constraints and statutory requirements

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview

[00:01:30] Oral Argument Begins

[00:01:41] M & K Opening Statement

[00:03:33] M & K Free for All Questions

[00:26:54] M & K Round Robin Questions

[00:31:47] IAM Opening Statement

[00:34:23] IAM Free for All Questions

[00:47:28] IAM Round Robin Questions

[00:47:31] United States Opening Statement

[00:48:39] United States Free for All Questions

[00:53:44] United States Round Robin Questions

[00:53:50] M & K Rebuttal