Status of our Fight for our Pensions

    Updated April 19, 2019
We now know what happened in 2009 between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") and U.S. Treasury's Auto Task Force.  We have data from the government and credible actuarial professionals that reveals our pension plan was better funded than the PBGC has publicly alleged.  Judge Tarnow asked us to show that the PBGC's termination of our plan was not warranted, and believe we've done that.  And with case law and undisputed facts, we've shown in our Motion for Summary Judgment that the PBGC broke the law.  The assets of our plan, which were seized by the PBGC in 2009 when the Dow was below 10,000, have grown considerably since then.  There's more than enough money to pay everyone the pensions they earned.
After nine years in our lawsuit against the PBGC, the DSRA on September 21, 2018, filed our Motion for Summary Judgment with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  Senior U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow held a hearing in Detroit on March 6, 2019, to discuss our motion, and the motion filed by the PBGC.
Our motion is more than 150 pages, accompanied by some 150 exhibits – over 800 pages in all.  It details the most compelling evidence we’ve gathered – much of it from the government after several judges ordered it to do so.  Our motion is also bolstered by considerable research of case law by our legal team.  It asserts that there is no need for a trial because the preponderance of the evidence proves that the PBGC terminated our pension plan illegally.  Based on the strength of our evidence, we believed that the judge would have sufficient grounds to order the PBGC to restore our full pensions – retroactively.
Judge Tarnow told the PBGC and DSRA attorneys on March 6 that he would take under advisement the additional information he heard during the hearing.  Sixteen days later, on March 22, DSRA was profoundly disappointed to receive Judge Tarnow’s ruling denying our Motion for Summary Judgment. On April 17, we filed Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio.