• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
Employee Benefits Law Group

Employee Benefits Law Group

Guidance. More than just Legal Advice.

  • What We Do
    • ESOPs
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Retirement Plans
    • Equity & Executive Compensation
    • Health & Welfare Plans
  • Our Team
  • Resources
  • Contact
Employee Benefits Law Group
Home > Resources > Mergers & Acquisitions > Withdrawal Liability: Heavenly Hana LLC v. Hotel Union & Hotel Industry of Hawaii Pension Plan

Withdrawal Liability: Heavenly Hana LLC v. Hotel Union & Hotel Industry of Hawaii Pension Plan

June 7, 2018 by Employee Benefits Law Group

In what should serve as a clear warning to buyers acquiring assets involving multi-employer pension plans (MEPs), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ June 1 decision put the onus on buyers to ensure that withdrawal liability is accounted for during an asset sale.

In a Transaction, Think of Withdrawal Liability As Termites

Multiemployer plan withdrawal liability is one of the most complicated and potentially expensive problems that can surface in an M&A transaction.

The condensed version of this case is that a private equity group under the parent company Amstar-39 (Amstar) entered into a purchase and sale agreement (Agreement) with Ohana Hotel Company LLC (Ohana) for a hotel in Maui in 2009.

The Agreement noted that Ohana’s employees were members of Local 5 of UNITE HERE (Union) and covered by the Hotel Union & Hotel Industry of Hawaii Pension Plan (Plan). The Agreement did not disclose that the Plan had been underfunded for several years. But, important to this case, this was not the first hotel Amstar had purchased with union employees and a union pension plan. And the Plan’s funding status notices were publicly available on the internet.

Ohana halted contributions to the Plan ten days before the deal closed and formally withdrew from the Plan on the day the deal closed. At closing, the unfunded vested liabilities triggered withdrawal liability for Ohana under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment (MPPAA) to ERISA.

Amstar continued to employ a majority of Ohana’s former employees and recognized Local 5 as the employees’ bargaining unit. But it developed its own employment terms and employee benefit plans rather than adopting the Union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. In 2012, the Plan notified Amstar that it had inherited Ohana’s $758,000 withdrawal liability as Ohana’s successor.

Amstar made $373,000 in payments to the Plan before filing suit to contest its responsibility for the withdrawal liability.

In February 2016, the lower court had concluded that, for purposes of the Plan, Amstar qualified as a successor employer to Ohana – Amstar had continued to use the purchased assets and employees in largely the same way Ohana had. However, it concluded that Amstar did not have “actual notice” of the withdrawal liability, rejecting the Plan’s argument for application of a “constructive notice” standard. The Plan’s appeal then hinged on whether the constructive notice standard should apply to withdrawal liability.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit decided that the constructive notice standard should apply to withdrawal liability. The court reasoned that Congress intended ERISA and MPPAA to be interpreted in a way that favors protecting plan participants and that constructive notice is consistent with such interpretation. 

In applying the constructive notice standard to this case, the court’s decision was tipped by a lack of due diligence on Amstar’s part.

The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that Ohana had failed to provide Amstar with the Plan funding deficiency notices required by the Agreement and that Ohana’s representatives had stated that “to their knowledge” the Plan was not underfunded. But it concluded that a seller’s conduct does not absolve a purchaser from taking simple steps to “gain knowledge of the withdrawal liability.”

And this is where termites enter the picture. The court wrote:

“Notably, Amstar had a four-person due diligence team undertake various investigations prior to the sale’s closing. The team ‘hired engineers … to look at the roofs, look at the termites, look at the condition of all structural [features] and give estimates on what it will take to fix it.’ As the Plan notes, Amstar ‘did not rely on the seller’s representation regarding termites’ but surprisingly did ‘rely on the seller’s representation over a multimillion-dollar issue like withdrawal liability.’ This reliance is unreasonable.”

Takeaway

Any asset buyer of a company with a union pension plan that intends to continue using the assets in essentially the same way the seller did, could be saddled with the seller’s withdrawal liability even if the buyer has no actual notice that such liability exists. 

In the Ninth Circuit, at least, the buyer will be deemed to have had notice of that liability if it has enough information to warrant an investigation that, if reasonably diligent, would reveal the liability. It is not clear how much information is enough to warrant an investigation into the seller’s withdrawal liability. But any time the buyer knows the seller has union employees, it should consider digging deeper into the status of the union pension plan.

If the buyer wouldn’t accept the seller’s promise that there are no termites without further investigation, it certainly shouldn’t accept a promise that there is no withdrawal liability. 

Filed Under: Mergers & Acquisitions Tagged With: Blog

About Employee Benefits Law Group

Employee Benefits Law Group is a deep and diverse team of experts working to make your life easier and improve your outcomes in every aspect of employee benefits. Our clients know we listen, probe and understand their challenges and objectives. We ask the questions they didn't know needed to be asked. They count on us to deliver solutions that become part of their company's overall success.

Meet the Team

EDITOR’S NOTE: We did the best we could to make sure the information and advice in this article were current as of the date of posting to the web site. Because the laws and the government’s rules are changing all the time, you should check with us if you are unsure whether this material is still current. Of course, none of our articles are meant to serve as specific legal advice to you. If you would like that, please call us at (916) 357-5660.

Recent Mergers & Acquisitions Posts

M&A Benefits – How to Avoid an Employee Benefits Train Wreck in Your Next Deal

Employee Benefits Plans In Mergers And Acquisitions

Benefit Plans in M&A Deals – Avoiding That Call After the Deal Has Closed

Don’t Miss Out! Subscribe

We cover all things employee benefits law.

Privacy Policy

We never share your info.

Let’s Start a Conversation

Have questions about your current benefit plan? Want to know what your benefit plan options are? Whatever your need, we’re here to help. Fill out a hassle-free request form, and one of our team members will follow up to get you on the path to success.

Get In Touch

Footer

Our experienced team guides you in all aspects of ESOPs, M&A due diligence, retirement plans, equity / compensation, and health and welfare benefits.
Sacramento Office
916-357-5660
11231 Gold Express Dr.
Suite 108
Gold River, CA 95670
San Jose Office
408-467-3860
2033 Gateway Place
Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95110
Phoenix Office
2550 W. Union Hills Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85027
Los Angeles Office
310-571-8896
10880 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 1101
Los Angeles, CA
90024
San Diego Office
916-357-5660
550 West B Street
San Diego, CA 92101
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

Copyright © 2025 Employee Benefits Law Group · Privacy Policy · Site Design by Delos Incorporated