[23-1209] M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund

Jan 20, 2026

Guest

Barber

Guest

Roberts

Guest

Keneally

In this discussion, Mr. Keneally, lead counsel for M & K Employee Solutions, champions the argument that actuarial assumptions should remain fixed at the valuation date. Mr. Roberts, representing the Trustees, counters by explaining that 'as of' allows for retrospective calculations and customary post-measurement adjustments. Mr. Barber supports these interpretations with insights on long-standing actuarial practices. The debate unpacks complex statutory interpretations and the implications of variable financial assumptions on employer liabilities.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Valuation Is Frozen At Plan-Year End

Section 1391 freezes the unfunded vested benefits calculation at the plan-year end, making assumptions materially determinative of withdrawal liability.
Keneally argues later changes to assumptions cannot alter that frozen valuation without creating unfair retroactivity.

INSIGHT

Assumptions Versus Objective Facts

Keneally distinguishes objective facts (assets, retirees) from actuarial assumptions, which embody judgment and policy choices.
He contends those judgment-based inputs should be fixed by the measurement date to avoid altering UVBs later.

ADVICE

Fix Assumptions By Year-End

If assumptions will change UVBs, decide them before December 31 so employers know their exposure for the coming year.
Keneally urges a bright-line deadline to avoid expensive, fact-bound disputes over post-year assumption shifts.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund

Justia · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Jan 20, 2026.

Petitioner: M & K Employee Solutions, LLC.
Respondent: Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund.

Advocates:

Michael E. Kenneally, Jr. (for the Petitioners)
John E. Roberts (for the Respondent)
Kevin J. Barber (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

M&K Employee Solutions operated three facilities that participated in the IAM National Pension Fund, a retirement plan jointly funded by multiple employers whose workers were represented by the International Association of Machinists union. In late 2017, the Fund’s actuary valued the plan’s unfunded obligations at about $448 million. Shortly after, in January 2018, the actuary met with the Fund’s trustees and decided to change key financial assumptions used to calculate how much departing employers owed the Fund. Most importantly, they lowered the assumed investment return rate from 7.5% to 6.5%, a change that would significantly increase the bills for employers leaving the plan.

M&K had already begun pulling out of the Fund when two of its facilities stopped participating in 2017. When M&K completely withdrew in 2018, the Fund calculated what M&K owed based on financial data from December 31, 2017, but used the new assumptions adopted in January 2018. This resulted in a withdrawal liability bill of over $6 million. Ohio Magnetics, another company in the Fund, faced a similar situation when it withdrew in mid-2018 and received a bill for about $447,000 calculated the same way.

Both companies challenged their bills through arbitration and won, with arbitrators ruling the Fund could not use assumptions created after the December 31, 2017 measurement date. The Fund then sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn these arbitration decisions. The district court sided with the Fund, ruling that actuaries could adopt new assumptions after the measurement date as long as they were based on information available at that time. The court remanded the cases to the arbitrators for reconsideration. Both employers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Question

When a pension plan calculates how much a departing employer owes “as of the end of the plan year,” must the plan use the financial assumptions it had already adopted by that date, or can it use new assumptions created after that date if they are based on information that was available at year-end?