CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
STEVENS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LOCAL 17 IRON WORKERS PENSION FUND; LOCAL 17 IRON WORKERS PENSION FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 16-4098/4099
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
Nos. 1:15-cv-01965; 1:15-cv-01967—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.
Argued: October 3, 2017
Decided and Filed: December 13, 2017
Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, part of ERISA, a construction industry employer who withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan owes liability to that plan if the employer conducts work “in the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement of the type for which contributions were previously required.” 29 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(2)(B)(i). In accordance with this provision, the Trustees of the Iron Workers Local 17 Pension Fund assessed pension liability against Stevens Engineers & Constructors, claiming that Stevens’s activities on a certain construction project involved such work within the jurisdiction of their previous collective bargaining agreement. As an arbitrator and the district court below found, however, Stevens did not owe pension liability to the Local 17 Pension Fund, because the work identified by Local 17 did not fall within the jurisdiction of the relevant collective bargaining agreement, and did not otherwise require contributions by Stevens. The collective bargaining agreement instead allowed Stevens to assign jobs like the ones at issue to other trade unions, and a job did not trigger pension liability to the Local 17 Pension Fund if, as here, it was properly assigned to a different union. Local 17 offers additional arguments as to why Stevens owed withdrawal liability, but these are also unavailing.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GEORGE MARCUS HALL,
Defendant,

KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
Petitioner-Appellant.
   No. 16-6512
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:15-cr-00154-1—Pamela Lynn Reeves, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: December 13, 2017
Before: MOORE, WHITE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In this case, we are called upon to decide whether Knox County, Tennessee has standing to file a claim in district court asserting its undisputed right to collect delinquent property taxes on real property that is subject to criminal forfeiture by the U.S. government and to assess whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Knox County’s motion for an interlocutory sale of the seized property. Because Knox County has a legally cognizable interest in the property in the form of a tax lien, the district court erred in dismissing for lack of standing Knox County’s claim. This does not mean, however, that Knox County is necessarily entitled to a hearing on the validity of its claim, as the district court may be able to ascertain the scope of Knox County’s interest on a motion for summary judgment by the government without holding a hearing. Because the district court must account for Knox County’s interest before entering a final order of forfeiture, we VACATE the district court’s final order of forfeiture and REMAND this case for proceedings consistent with this decision.

We further hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Knox County’s motion for an interlocutory sale of the property. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the motion for interlocutory sale.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM; TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT PENSION FUND; NEW YORK CITY POLICE PENSION FUND; TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK VARIABLE ANNUITY PROGRAM,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; WAYNE T. SMITH; W. LARRY CASH,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-6059
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
Nos. 3:11-cv-00433; 3:11-cv-00451; 3:11-cv-00601—Kevin H. Sharp, District Judge.
Argued: May 3, 2017
Decided and Filed: December 13, 2017
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; SUTTON and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. The value of shares in Community Health Systems fell immediately after a competitor, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, publicly disclosed expert analyses and other information suggesting that Community’s profits depended largely on Medicare fraud. The plaintiffs here, who owned Community shares at the time, allege that the disclosure caused the fall. The district court found that theory implausible because the disclosure came in the form of a complaint, which the market would regard as comprising mere allegations rather than truth. But whatever the merits of that proposal as a general rule, the Tenet complaint at least plausibly presents an exception to it. Moreover, according to the plaintiffs, the market received similar disclosures from another source: namely Community itself, whose senior executives—after trying for several months to lull the market with still more misrepresentations—eventually corroborated much of what Tenet had alleged. And when they did, Community’s shares fell once again. The plaintiffs in this case have therefore plausibly alleged that the value of Community’s shares fell because of a series of revelations about practices that Community had previously concealed. For that reason and others, we reverse.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICHARD E. JACKSON; SIERRA N. JACKSON, individually and as the personal representative on behalf of the Estate of Bruce D. Jackson,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 17-3120
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 3:14-cv-00041—Walter H. Rice, District Judge.
Argued: November 28, 2017
Decided and Filed: December 13, 2017
Before: GILMAN, SUTTON, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Bruce Jackson married Bridget Jackson in 1993, and Sierra Jackson, their only child, arrived in 1995. They divorced in 2006. In their separation agreement, Bruce and Bridget agreed to maintain any employer-related life insurance policies for the benefit of Sierra until she turned 18 or graduated from high school. At the time, Bruce had an employersponsored life insurance policy that listed his uncle, Richard Jackson, as the sole beneficiary. Bruce never changed the beneficiary of the policy to Sierra before he died in 2013. Litigation ensued, and the district court ordered Sun Life to pay the life insurance proceeds to Sierra. Because the divorce decree suffices as a qualified domestic relations order that “clearly specifies” Sierra as the beneficiary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), we affirm.