DSRA Disappointed with U.S. Supreme Court Denial of Petition

Delphi Salaried Retirees Association Board Chairman Bruce Gump this morning expressed profound disappointment that the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear the DSRA appeal concerning the involuntarily terminated Delphi Salaried Pension Plan. That termination in 2009 affected nearly 20,000 seniors who worked as salaried employees for the then Delphi Corporation. DSRA News Release ...

Michigan Attorney General Nessel Leads Coalition in Protecting Delphi Retirees

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel led a coalition with six other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief before the United States Supreme Court in Dennis Black et al v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which argues the due process rights of former Delphi Corporation employees were violated when the corporation's bankruptcy resulted in termination of Delphi's pension plan.
Petitioners in the lawsuit are former employees of Delphi, an auto-parts manufacturer and supplier, and were participants in Delphi's pension plan. After Delphi filed for bankruptcy, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) executed an agreement with the pension plan's administrator to terminate the pension plan. Read full press release ...

U.S. Supreme Court Places DSRA Petition on Its Docket

DSRA's Petition asked the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' 2020 ruling that upheld the PBGC's 2009 involuntary termination of the Delphi salaried retirees pension plan.
"The Sixth Circuit got it very wrong, on matters of exceptional importance to the nation’s pensioners, and in substantial disagreement with other circuits." – So argues our 36-page petition – click here for redacted copy – that the Supreme Court placed in its docket on October 4, 2021.
For more than 40 years, the PBGC has terminated pension plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) that the PBGC deems to be in distress, through agreements with the administrators of the plans.  There’s no judicial oversight or hearing of any sort for participants like Delphi salaried retirees who will lose benefits upon termination.  The termination of our salaried pension is one example.
On behalf of Delphi salaried retirees, DSRA’s petition asked the Court (1) whether ERISA indeed permits this, and (2) does termination of a pension plan through such an agreement violate the participants’ constitutional rights to due process?  In arguing in our petition that we indeed have been denied due process, we cite a 1980 Supreme Court decision (Nachman Corp. v. PBGC) that we believe the Sixth Circuit overlooked in finding for the PBGC in 2020.  On January 18, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the retirees' petition for a writ of certiorari.

Momentum Building in Congress to Restore Our Pension Plan

     Updated Tuesday, 24 August 2021
August 23, 2021Response from The Treasury (obo The PBGC Board) — tells DSRA to "go ask Congress, not us" — 28 congressmen are told in a letter from the Treasury Department that "The Departments of Treasury, Labor and Commerce concluded that Congressional action would be required to restore these lost pension benefits. Therefore, we have not taken further steps on this issue."
July 20, 202128 Members of the U.S. House Representatives — 11 Democrats and 17 Republicans in whose congressional districts live a considerable number of Delphi salaried retirees — send a letter to the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor and Treasury — the trio from President Biden’s cabinet comprise the PBGC board of directors.  The letter is almost identical to the letter from eight U.S. senators sent on June 10.  The letter presses the Executive Branch of government to act on President Trump’s directive of last October.  It says in part, "We understand this review was due on January 20, 2021 – before you assumed your current roles … we ask you to provide us with an update on the status of the report.  Specifically, we ask you to inform us when work on this report commenced, when you expect this report to be completed, and when Congress can expect to receive a copy for review."

read more ...