{"id":25,"date":"2026-05-24T14:38:20","date_gmt":"2026-05-24T14:38:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25"},"modified":"2026-05-24T14:38:20","modified_gmt":"2026-05-24T14:38:20","slug":"justices-agree-that-actuaries-can-use-up-to-date-assumptions-in-assessing-costs-of-leaving-a-multi-employer-pension-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25","title":{"rendered":"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Yesterday\u2019s in M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund<\/em> was pretty much exactly what you would have expected given the argument: a brisk rejection of the idea that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 obligates actuaries to use out-of-date assumptions when they work on pension plans.<\/p>\n

Read more Court puts off deciding whether to consider $5 million verdict against Trump \u2013 yet again<\/a><\/p>\n

The case involves a multiemployer pension plan, a common arrangement in which a group of employers in a particular industry band together, collectively agreeing to provide specifically defined benefits to all covered employees. A natural question under those arrangements is what happens when one employer decides to leave the group. Under ERISA, the departing employer must make a payment to the plan equal to the employer\u2019s share of any benefits attributable to past work that are unfunded, based on an actuary\u2019s calculation \u201cas of\u201d the \u201cmeasurement date,\u201d the last day of the year before the employer withdraws.<\/p>\n

Because the calculation necessarily is made after the date of the employer\u2019s withdrawal, but \u201cas of\u201d the \u201cmeasurement date\u201d in the preceding year, the statute contemplates a gap between the state of contributions and obligations that set the departing employer\u2019s responsibility and the date on which the responsibility is calculated. The issue in this case is whether the background economic assumptions \u2013 in particular the discount rate of interest that is crucial to the amount of liability \u2013 are supposed to be accurate on the date of calculation or based on assumptions the actuary was using during the preceding year (before the employer withdrew). The question often matters a lot. In this case, for example, the departing employer owed more than three times as much under the interest rate that was current on the date the actuary made the calculation as it would have owed under an interest rate set the previous year.<\/p>\n

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson\u2019s brisk opinion for a unanimous court is squarely on the side of accuracy as of the date that the actuary in fact makes the calculation. Jackson\u2019s take on the statute is that the requirement to make the calculation \u201cas of\u201d the measurement date \u201cmeans two things. First, the hard data about the plan that feeds the \u2026 calculation must be fixed on the measurement date. Second, \u2026 the actual \u2026 calculation can be performed after the measurement date.\u201d For her, \u201cthe key question is whether actuarial assumptions [like the proper discount rate] are akin to the facts about the plan that must be fixed on<\/em> the measurement date, or whether they are a part of the \u2026 calculation itself and can therefore be selected after<\/em> the measurement date.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more \u201cShadow docket\u201d reform?<\/a><\/p>\n

Once she has posed that as the question for decision, the case is pretty much over. Jackson explains that \u201cactuarial assumptions \u2026 are not factual inputs. Instead, they are predictive judgments about a plan\u2019s anticipated future performance\u2014tools<\/em> actuaries use to calculate the plan\u2019s [unfunded future obligations].\u201d In practice, she points out, \u201cactuarial assumptions are adopted for the purpose of a particular calculation or measurement; they are not generally \u2018in effect\u2019\u201d for some particular time period. In short, \u201c[b]ecause actuarial assumptions are tools used to calculate [unfunded future obligations] rather than hard data about the plan, they cannot be \u2018frozen\u2019 on the measurement date.\u201d Thus, Jackson concludes, the statutory \u201cas of\u201d requirement only \u201csets the reference point for the factual inputs into the \u2026 calculation. It has no bearing on when actuaries must select the tools, including assumptions, they use to calculate a plan\u2019s [unfunded future obligations].\u201d<\/p>\n

Jackson buttresses her conclusion by pointing out that the statute requires only that the actuary\u2019s assumptions must be \u201creasonable,\u201d \u201ctak[e] into account the experience of the plan and reasonable expectations,\u201d and \u201coffer the actuary\u2019s best estimate of anticipated [future] experience under the plan.\u201d It did not, though, directly specify that actuaries should select assumptions as of any particular date. For other calculations under the statute, in contrast, Congress did much more to specify the relevant assumptions. Congress\u2019 failure to specify the relevant assumptions here, Jackson \u201cpresume[s,] is intentional.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the grand scheme of ERISA litigation, I doubt this will be an important decision. The justices needed to decide it because courts in New York were applying a contrary rule, but it seems unlikely to shed light on the general provisions governing plan administration that spark the great bulk of ERISA litigation.<\/p>\n

Read more A history of Supreme Court leaks<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yesterday\u2019s in M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund was pretty much exactly what you would have expected given the argument: a brisk rejection of the idea that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 obligates actuaries to use out-of-date assumptions when they work on pension plans. Read more Court […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":24,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion-analysis"],"yoast_head":"\nJustices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Yesterday\u2019s in M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund was pretty much exactly what you would have expected given the argument: a brisk rejection of the idea that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 obligates actuaries to use out-of-date assumptions when they work on pension plans. Read more Court […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-24T14:38:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-24T14:38:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25\"},\"wordCount\":775,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/bffef71e6028537f46724923466c090a.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Opinion Analysis\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25\",\"name\":\"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/bffef71e6028537f46724923466c090a.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-24T14:38:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/bffef71e6028537f46724923466c090a.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/bffef71e6028537f46724923466c090a.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=25#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan - American Service Review","og_description":"Yesterday\u2019s in M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund was pretty much exactly what you would have expected given the argument: a brisk rejection of the idea that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 obligates actuaries to use out-of-date assumptions when they work on pension plans. Read more Court […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-05-24T14:38:20+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan","datePublished":"2026-05-24T14:38:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25"},"wordCount":775,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/bffef71e6028537f46724923466c090a.jpg","articleSection":["Opinion Analysis"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25","name":"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/bffef71e6028537f46724923466c090a.jpg","datePublished":"2026-05-24T14:38:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/bffef71e6028537f46724923466c090a.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/bffef71e6028537f46724923466c090a.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=25#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Justices agree that actuaries can use up-to-date assumptions in assessing costs of leaving a multi-employer pension plan"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=25"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/24"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=25"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=25"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=25"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}