|
UPFJ Update for April 5, 2012
Fellow UPFJ Members,
Please read the letter from our attorney, Kevin McBride, to PBGC Director Joshua Gotbaum about our recent meeting with the PBGC in Washington. Click on the link to the left under KEVIN MCBRIDE LETTER TO JOSHUAL GOTBAUM MARCH 21, 2012.
Mike Kelly
President, United Pilots for Justice
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
United Pilots for Justice, Inc.
Status Update Report
March 7, 2012
_________________________________
Dear UPFJ Members:
This is our status update report for March 7, 2012. This report covers two main areas: (1) our meeting with PBGC attorneys and actuaries in Washington DC that took place on February 27, 2012 and (2) our latest information regarding the UAL Pilot Plan asset re-audit and the updated FDLs we expect from PBGC as a result of that audit. Accompanying UPFJ Counsel Kevin McBride at the meeting with PBGC were UPFJ President Mike Kelly, Vice President Woody Eppelsheimer and Secretary/Treasurer Steve Chiles.
February 27, 2012 Meeting at PBGC
We met with PBGC attorneys and actuaries to informally discuss several issues of concern to UPFJ membership, primarily the following:
(1) PBGC fails to follow the order of calculation used by UAL Plan Administrators in calculating offsets for the partial lump sum distributions ("PLSA") received by pilots that had early retirement penalties at the time of retirement;
(2) PBGC erroneously accepted UAL Corp.'s filings of the "book value" of the Mileage Plus program instead of requiring a "fair market value" determination of Mileage Plus at the time of Plan termination; and
(3) PBGC did not allocate enough of the $1.5 billion payment from UAL Corp to the Pilot Plan at the time of Plan termination.
(4) Requested the QDRO's, retired pilots that have never received any Final Determination Letter, be processed at the front of the new FDL's.
These issues were raised as part of an "informal" appeal–a non-binding discussion of issues prior to PBGC's completion of the Plan asset re-audit. Our thinking was that if we could raise these issues before PBGC finished the Plan asset re-audit, we could persuade them to address some or all of these issues on the front end of the re-audit process. Importantly, we can still raise ALL of these issues as part of our "formal" appeal with PBGC which will be due later this year.
We are sorry to say that PBGC did not seem receptive to our arguments on any of the issues listed above. Instead, they had predictable bureaucratic responses to all our points. Rather than fairly discussing the issues we raised, their focus in the February 27 meeting was to protect and justify everything they did in processing our Plan. These are the same people, of course, that badly botched the Plan valuation, leading to the scathing report from Inspector General Batts on November 30, 2011.
The most glaring example of bureaucratic doublespeak was by Assistant Chief Counsel James, J. Armbruster (see photo) on the order of calculation issue. The order of calculation error is a clear, indisputable error first identified by retired UAL pilot Doug Wilsman and confirmed by UPFJ legal counsel, Kevin McBride. In calculating early retirement offsets required under the A Plan, the practice of the UAL Plan Administrator (before Plan termination) was to apply the early retirement penalty AFTER deducting any PLSA distribution. On Plan termination, PBGC was required by its own regulations to follow this order of calculation in determining PC3 benefits. Instead, PBGC applies the early retirement penalty BEFORE deducting any PLSA distribution. The PBGC reversal of this order of calculation has reduced benefits for many UPFJ members by a few hundred dollars per month.
Because this error in the order of calculation was so easy to see, and is applied by PBGC in reverse order for PC3 calculations as was done by the UAL Plan Administrator, we expected the PBGC lawyers and actuaries to understand this error and be willing to correct it without formal appeal procedures.
To our great disappointment, James Armbruster, speaking for PBGC on this issue, seemed entirely unwilling to acknowledge PBGC's error. Armbruster argued that because PBGC calculated the Maximum Guaranteed Benefit (under PC4) by applying the early retirement factor before accounting for the PLSA distribution, it was somehow allowed to use the same process for PC3 calculations. This is simply wrong. PC3 calculations are set out by statutes and regulations, and prior PBGC decisions. Under this authority, PBGC was required to apply the order of calculation in the same way as the previous plan administrator. PBGC even ADMITTED that the UAL Plan Administrator applied the order of calculation in the way we described.
Nevertheless, Armbruster stuck to his flawed argument that PBGC was somehow allowed to do the PC3 order of calculation in the same way it did the PC4 calculation. This is plainly wrong. Further, his entire unwillingness to see this simple issue fairly has caused the UPFJ board and legal counsel to doubt the authenticity and creditability of the PBGC administration process. Unless Armbruster is willing to address this issue fairly and honestly, it is our view that no part of the PBGC handling of the UAL Pilot Plan is, or will be, done fairly. We expect to hear a final decision from Armbruster in the coming days. Once we have his final word on this, we will let you know.
If Armbruster sticks to his flawed position on the PLSA order of calculation issue, the UPFJ Board will recommend a very different course of action against PBGC than we have taken so far. At that time, it will be necessary to take this fight directly to the people at PBGC who are causing the problem for UAL pilots–the bureaucrats and administrators who ignore PBGC regulations and ignore any sense of fairness in administering the Plan. We simply cannot afford to have closed-minded bureaucrats remain in positions of power over our pensions and future lives.
There were other aspects of our February 27 meeting that were also disturbing. Particularly, we were disturbed by PBGC's unwillingness to acknowledge its own CLEAR regulation that all corporate assets of a terminating plan sponsor must be reported at fair market value. But we will address this and other issues in more detail in the future as we decide how best to proceed against PBGC in our formal appeal.
The takeaway from the February 27 meeting is this: if PBGC acknowledges its error on the PLSA order of calculation and voluntarily agrees to make that adjustment for all affected pilots, we (the UPFJ Board) will continue to try to work with PBGC administrators on all other issues that affect us. In that sense the PLSA order of calculation is a "litmus test" for us. But if Armbruster and the other PBGC administrators can't willingly admit their error on this simple PLSA issue, we should expect that no other part of their treatment of our pension issues will be fair. At that point, we will recommend concerted direct action by UPFJ (and possibly other airline pilot groups) to aggressively relieve the current PBGC administrators of their jobs. We cannot tolerate incompetence and arrogance among those who have so much power over our lives.
The timing of any direct action against PBGC administrators is also important. Publicly, the Obama-appointed PBGC Director, Joshua Gotbaum, is saying all the right things about protecting the pension rights of Americans. But if the actual people administering those pension rights are following the same destructive game plan set out by previous PBGC directors, notably Bradley Belt, then the Obama administration will be no better at protecting pension benefits than previously. We encourage and support a strong course of action to protect pension benefits for UPFJ members and all Americans. But if Gotbaum's soothing words about protecting pensions turn out to be nothing more than political double-speak for an Obama re-election campaign, we will feel obligated to speak up and point that out, as well. We cannot tolerate a PBGC Director saying all the right things about protecting pensions while his underlings are working hard to destroy those same pension rights.
In any event, we will discuss this issue in future updates. We will report back to you after hearing from Armbruster on the PLSA order of calculation issue and make further recommendations for a way forward, depending on the information we receive.
Asset Re-Audit and new FDLs
We have been told for months now that all PC3 pilots at UAL would receive new FDLs based on the asset re-audit. We have been told to expect a slight increase in benefits as a result of the re-audit. Because of the slight increase in benefits, each PC3 pilot will need a new FDL, which will trigger a new 45-day appeal period and will control the appeal deadline for our consolidated appeal.
In spite of many promises, we still don't have new FDLs issued for UAL pilots. The latest such representation is that FDLs will be out by approximately August, 2012, and that our appeal deadline will shortly follow that date.
We were also told, however, that if any individual pilot has an issue that seems to be clearly wrong with his or her pension benefits, that issue can be addressed individually without waiting for the final appeal deadline.
Age 65 to 60 for "full" PBGC distributions
Many of our members have called and written regarding UPFJ involvement in this legal action. We are not at this time, as it is not clear if there will benefit the PC-3 category pilots. It should effect the pre-1995 pilots and pilots flying past termination retired or flying in the PC-4 Category. If the legal action is in the retiree favor, we will apply it to our formal appeal for those it effects, if needed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UPFJ Update December 14th, 2011
Fellow UPFJ Members,
We are posting the complete letter and support documents prepared by UPFJ attorney Kevin McBride for Director Gottbaum of the PBGC, Inspector General Batts, and California Congressman Miller on the links menu to the left for your access. We suggest you read the complete letter for specific details, and review the support documentation tailored to the PBGC from the UPFJ UAL Complaint. A summary of our actions follows:
NOTE: We request you refer other interested parties to the web site and not post this internal UPFJ update intended for members only.
Summary of current UPFJ actions with PBGC Principles and Congressman Miller:
UPFJ has been discussing with the PBGC that the assessment of the Defined Benefit Plan required for termination was seriously flawed and why. Now we have supporting evidence from Inspector General Batts that the core values of the Plan were not audited properly. The PBGC used United provided "book values" instead of a "market values" appraisal by an independent auditor concerning the transferred funds to the PBGC. By extension, the UPFJ position is those flawed procedures that did not meet EIRSA requirements also resulted in the faulty termination and takeover of the Retiree Defined Benefit Plan by the PBGC.
The UPFJ UAL Complaint was closely followed by the PBGC. Their Appeals division recommended we request a meeting with the Director of the PBGC to discuss our Plan termination issues. In addition, they suggested a meeting with the department head in charge of distribution formulation to discuss our informal appeal issues.
We are waiting for a reply from the PBGC principles. We will move forward as soon as we receive the PBGC reaction to our request.
Your Board would like to thank all of you for your patience, support, and general input, as well as specific expert advice from some of our members. A special thanks to our members, the 911 widowed wives Ellen Sarancini and Melodie Harper, in concert with the remaining 911 wives. They are very active member contributors to our efforts and will be instrumental in accessing and directing both the Press and Congressional contacts in the future when the time is right.
Happy Holidays to all of you from the Board of UPFJ.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
November 30, 2011
Fellow UPFJ Members,
Yesterday the PBGC Inspector General Batts issued a second report about the PBGC failing to properly evaluate the United assets transferred to the PBGC and numerous other failings.
We believe this report is a game changer. We are posting the Batts' report on the links menu to the left for your access. Just click on the link "PBGC INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT RE: UAL ASSET AUDIT 11-30-2011". This file takes a few seconds to load. Please read and stand by the coming week for the next steps by UPFJ ,as well as more details about the possible implications of this report.
With Best Regards from the UPFJ Board
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
November 2011
Response to URPBPA's Termination Letter
Fellow UPFJ Members
Your UPFJ board received the United Retired Pilots Benefit Association termination letter from their board. We were bit surprised at the decision process leading to a distribution of their funds balance to the 1980's retiree group that were not effected by the United termination of our retirement plan. This decision was apparently made with a gross misunderstanding of UPFJ's past work and ongoing PBGC work for UPFJ members, many of whom were the largest contributors to URPBA and many in dire financial situations due to the deep cuts of up to 85% of the Defined Benefit Plan for those retiring in the five years prior to the UAL Bankruptcy.
URPBPA's brief explanation of our UAL complaint legal action was off the mark. Our ERISA lawsuit in Washington, DC raised issues that were apparently ignored by URPBPA's attorneys during their failed bankruptcy retirement protection efforts.
United and Kirkland Ellis then created a diversion from the ERISA case by reopening United's bankruptcy and seeking contempt charges. This diversion, allowed by Judge Wedoff and the DC court, effectively overrode the ERISA claim. These events combined with the false contempt charge against our membership, put us on the road of multiple appeals to defend a contempt charge, and not the ERISA issues. It was simply a matter of being too expensive for multiple appeals, exposed our members to individual contempt charges, false or not, and would not have accomplished anything at the end to justify the expense or personal exposure to fight the wrong issues.
UPFJ has returned its entire focus to our ongoing discussions with the PBGC for our informal appeals as well as preparing PBGC formal appeals to participate in any benefits from the USAir Eagles action in the DC Federal Court and the Delta Formal PBGC appeals.
UPFJ has much to do on several fronts. We are actively pursuing remedy from the PBGC in the informal appeals arena as well as structuring formal appeals to participate in any USAir or Delta successes in court or with the PBGC. Continuing work with the PBGC that URPBA has not attempted and will not now support.
On another issue, your board put out a statement that was a bit broad on one of our informal appeals. The effect of changing the formula position of the PLSA payment in the PBGC calculations will effect all the post Dec 2001 PC-3 retirees due to the effects of the 3 year look back by the PBGC. It will effect pre Dec 30, 2001 retirees that took the PLSA option and retired early. It will not affect those retirees that retired at age 60 before Dec 30, 2001 or those that retired earlier at age 60.
We will have more news as soon as we have our informal appeals filed, and that will hopefully be in the next week or two. We are monitoring the USAir and Delta progress and will report anything they get from their efforts.
Regards from the Board of UPFJ
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
October 2011 Update
Dear UPFJ Member:
We formed UPFJ about a year ago–our goal was to recover pension losses for UPFJ members. This update is an annual report of our activities.
PBGC Initiative
UPFJ began its efforts in September 2010 by filing a notice of consolidated appeal with PBGC. Since that time, the following things have happened:
• PBGC has re-audited the United Pilots Pension asset valuation based on findings by PBGC Inspector General Rebecca Batts. We are told that the audit is complete, but we are still waiting for PBGC to formally release its findings.
• We have filed an "informal" appeal with PBGC seeking informal reconsideration of three issues that could increase pension benefits for most UPFJ members.
Of these "informal" appeal issues, the most promising has to do with a correction of PBGC's order of calculating certain offsets to benefits payments involving partial lump sum payments and early retirement reductions. We believe PBGC has used the wrong order of calculation, and that if benefit payments are recalculated in the same way United Airlines did things before pension termination, each affected pilot would likely receive a few hundred extra dollars per month in benefits increases. Tentatively, and in the general case (without reference to any specific pilot) PBGC has indicated they agree with our approach. So we are hopeful that this area of focus may result in higher pension payments for most UPFJ members.
• We have a January, 2012 deadline for filing our formal PBGC appeal. Hopefully the "informal appeal" can be resolved without the need for a formal appeal. But if not, we will add those issues to our formal appeal. We are also considering additional issues for a formal appeal–particularly whether the Pilots Plan received a proper amount of distribution from the UAL Master Trust on plan termination. As with all issues, we only want to pursue the PBGC appeal if (and so long as) we believe we have a good chance of winning. So before filing a formal appeal, we will evaluate that question closely.
Lawsuit against United Airlines
In December, 2010, we filed a lawsuit against United Airlines in Federal Court in Washington, DC for ERISA violations at the time of pension plan termination. Specifically, we have found that United was required by PBGC regulations to disclose the value of Mileage Plus at "fair market value" (about $7.5 billion) but instead, United disclosed the value of Mileage Plus at "book value" (about -$387 million). Based on this clear disclosure error, we believe individual plan participants have a right to sue for individual losses under ERISA.
United filed a motion to dismiss in the DC case: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UAL_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf and a motion to transfer the case to Federal Court in Chicago: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UAL_Motion_to_Transfer.pdf We filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UPFJ_Opposition_to_Dismiss.pdf and a brief in opposition to the motion to transfer: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UPFJ_Opposition_to_Transfer_Venue.pdf
United then filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/United_Reply_Brief_on_Motion_to_Dismiss__07.29.11_.pdf and the reply brief on the motion to transfer: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/United_Reply_Brief_on_Motion_to_Transfer__07.29.11_.pdf
Our judge, Judge Boasberg, has not ruled on either of the motions.
One of the main reasons we wanted to file in Washington, DC was to get the case out of the Chicago Federal court system. The merits of our ERISA case are strong, but we were worried that if the case were heard in the Chicago courts, the case might be compromised because of United's obvious "home court advantage" in Chicago.
United Reopens Bankruptcy
But at the same time it filed its motions in the DC case, United also filed a motion to reopen the bankruptcy proceedings in Chicago bankruptcy court before Judge Wedoff. United's obvious goal was to have Judge Wedoff stop the DC case in its tracks before any of the ERISA issues could be heard in Washington, DC and before United would be required to explain why it failed to disclose Mileage Plus at fair market value at the time of pension termination.
On August 17, 2011, Judge Wedoff formally re-opened bankruptcy proceedings. We then immediately filed a motion: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UPFJ_Memorandum_in_Support_for_Clarification_of_Confirmation_Order__08.26.11_.pdf before Judge Wedoff to declare that the bankruptcy court's January 10, 2006 confirmation order did not prevent our ERISA case from going forward for three reasons:
(1) Pension plan termination happened in June, 2006, 51/2 months AFTER the bankruptcy court's confirmation order;
(2) our ERISA claims depended on getting final determination letters from PBGC, which only recently happened and
(3) bankruptcy courts cannot interpret ERISA law. We believe we are right on these legal interpretations.
Nevertheless, United then took a step that became a "show stopper" for our ERISA lawsuit pending in Washington, DC–United filed its own motion: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/United_Motion_for_Contempt.pdf asking Judge Wedoff to hold each individual plaintiff and all legal counsel in contempt of court for having even filed the DC ERISA case in the first place. We have filed three opposition briefs: NOF Response in Opposition to Contempt Motion: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/NOF_-_Response_in_Opposition_to_Contempt_Motion__court-stamped___EOD_17465_.pdf and UPFJ Response in Opposition to Motion for Contempt: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UPFJ_Response_in_Opposition_to_Motion_for_Contempt___Affidavits__court-stamped___EOD_17464_.pdf, and Affidavit of Kevin McBride: http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/Affidavit_of_Kevin_McBride_Dated_September_29_2011.pdf and again, we think we are right on the law about this.
However, United's motion for contempt has put us in a very difficult position, trying to do the right thing for UPFJ members. On the one hand, we are very confident we that our ERISA case in Washington, DC is solid and should go forward and be heard on the merits. But on the other hand, we are worried that Judge Wedoff will protect the United bankruptcy at any cost, and doesn't really care what ERISA law says.
We have local bankruptcy counsel in Chicago, Bruce Wald of the firm Tischler & Wald. Mr. Wald has extensive experience with Judge Wedoff, having appeared in Wedoff's court many times over the years. Bruce Wald believes it is very likely that Judge Wedoff will enter the contempt order against individual UPFJ members, requiring UPFJ individual members and its legal counsel to pay legal fees for Kirkland & Ellis.
In the face of this advice from Mr. Wald, the UPFJ board and its lead counsel, Kevin McBride, have had many long debates about how to proceed. No one on the UPFJ Board wants to be bullied into giving up valid ERISA claims against United. But the UPFJ Board also considers its responsibility to safeguarding the finances of UPFJ members as the highest concern. Because so many UPFJ members have suffered financially, we could not add to that financial burden by putting individual UPFJ members at risk of an adverse legal fee award by Judge Wedoff.
We then contacted several institutions and private individuals in an effort to obtain financial backing for UPFJ so that if the contempt order were entered, we would have financial backing that would not put individual UPFJ members at risk. However, our attempts to find a "white knight" were not successful.
UPFJ's Decision to Dismiss the ERISA Case
We could not justify putting our UPFJ membership at risk for having to individually pay Kirkland & Ellis legal fees for defending United. Even though we believe the law gives us strong ERISA claims against United for failure to properly disclose the value of Mileage Plus at the time of plan termination, the discussions always returned to our highest priority–to not put UPFJ members at personal risk in the event Judge Wedoff enters a contempt order.
Because of this priority–to protect UPFJ individual members from any contempt judgment by Judge Wedoff–we the UPFJ Board decided we have no other choice than to dismiss the DC ERISA case in exchange for United's agreement to dismiss its bankruptcy contempt motion against individual UPFJ members.
Therefore, we have instructed our legal counsel to enter an agreement with United's counsel that will dismiss the DC ERISA case in exchange for United's dismissal of the contempt motion currently pending before Wedoff.
Was the United Lawsuit Worth Filing?
For the reasons explained above, the UPFJ Board felt it had no realistic choice–we needed to dismiss the DC case in exchange for United's agreement to drop any contempt charges against individual UPFJ members.
This raises the obvious question: should we have even tried to file the ERISA case in Washington, DC in the first place? We think that the risk/reward of filing the case was worth it. We all knew there were challenges to bringing our ERISA case, considering all the water under the bridge in previous litigation efforts. We needed to get a break–we needed Judge Boasberg in Washington, DC to step in and hear the case. This would have effectively taken control of the case over Judge Wedoff. That is certainly an outcome that could have happened here–but did not. So we rolled the dice on this issue, but lost. However we did not spend too much money in the process, and we took our very best shot at United for its violation of ERISA rules at the time of pension termination.
We think it was better to have tried our very best on the ERISA case, and to have lost, then to never have tried at all–as long as we didn't create too much risk or cost for individual UPFJ members.
Where we are Now
UPFJ's focus right now is to optimize the informal appeal before PBGC and try to get a few hundred extra dollars per month for a large share of UPFJ members. We are closely evaluating our options for a formal appeal. We are also following US Air's efforts in its litigation against PBGC. If US Air pilots win some of the issues pending in their case, those same issues might also be available to us.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
August 2, 2011
Fellow UPFJ Members,
As a result of the Batts Report http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/BATTS_REPORT.PDF the PBGC is in the process of re-auditing the value of certain assets in the UAL pilots pension plan. (Note: this asset re-audit does NOT have anything to do with the UPFJ v. United litigation.) PBGC has told our legal counsel that this asset re-audit is close to being finished. As soon as we have word that the re-audit is finished, we will post a summary of the results on this website. We will also request a copy of the asset re-audit through the Freedom of Information Act and will post on this website.
Because of the need to see the results of this re-audit before filing a formal PBGC appeal, our appeal filing deadline has been pushed back, yet again. The new appeal deadline is December 2, 2011.
Please check this website periodically for updates–we will post information on the re-audit as soon as we receive it. It will also be helpful if individual UPFJ members use this website for information updates rather than calling PBGC directly.
Thank you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
July 17, 2011
Fellow UPFJ Members,
On July 15,2011 our legal counsel filed three briefs in opposition to United's earlier motions to dismiss, to transfer venue and to reopen bankruptcy proceedings.
United's Motion to Dismiss is http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UAL_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf. Our Memorandum in Opposition to United's Motion to Dismiss is http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UPFJ_Opposition_to_Dismiss.pdf.
United's Motion to Transfer Venue is http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UAL_Motion_to_Transfer.pdf. Our Memorandum in Opposition to United's Motion to Transfer Venue is http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UPFJ_Opposition_to_Transfer_Venue.pdf.
United's Motion to Reopen Bankruptcy Proceedings is http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UAL_Motion_to_Reopen_Bankruptcy.pdf .Our Memorandum in Opposition to United's Motion to Reopen Bankruptcy is http://andyswebtools.com/uploads/4028/UPFJ_Opposition_to_Reopen_Bankruptcy.pdf.
All the motions and memorandums can be viewed on this website. They are listed in the menu to the left under UAL MOTIONS TO THE UPFJ COMPLAINT and UPFJ MEMORANDUM'S IN OPPOSITION TO UNITED'S MOTIONS.
United has until July 29, 2011 to file reply briefs in all three proceedings. After that we expect Judge Boasberg to set a hearing date on the motions to dismiss and to transfer venue. More detailed information will follow next week. The UPFJ Board is pleased with our legal efforts, and think you will agree as you read these briefs that we are putting our best foot forward.
From the Board and Officers of UPFJ
Mike Kelly
Wood Eppelsheimer
Steve Chiles
Barry Butler
Ron Blash
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
June 10, 2011
Fellow UPFJ Members,
A thanks to all of you that have continued to support our ongoing efforts to restore our retirement. It has been quiet while your officers and attorneys have been moving forward on the United Complaint, PBGC communications, and finalizing our membership.
UPFJ/United Complaint:
United's attorneys, Kirkland Ellis, filed their response to the UPFJ Complaint on June 7th, as follows:
(1) Motion to Dismiss
(2) Motion for Change of Venue to the Illinois Federal Court
(3) Motion to re-open bankruptcy proceedings
The UAL motions in response to the UPFJ Amended Complaint can be viewed in the UAL MOTIONS TO THE UPFJ COMPLAINT on the link list to the left.
Our legal team has started working on our response to UAL's motions. These are more or less the legal attacks we expected from UAL, and preliminary indications are that we feel good about our chances to overcome the motions.
After the motions are fully briefed, DC District Court Judge, James E. Boasberg will likely assign a hearing date for oral arguments on the motions. We will keep you updated as our opposition briefs are filed and a hearing date is set.
PBGC
The PBGC will be informally looking into several issues identified by UPFJ. While we don't expect a formal PBGC Appeal until later, there may be some issues that could fall outside the formal appeal process and those will be discussed with the PBGC over the next few weeks.
There has been a second internal audit of the United Pension transfer to PBGC commissioned by the PBGC. There should be a public announcement on the PBGC web site in the near future about their findings. We will update this site as soon as we hear anything from PBGC.
From the Board and Officers of UPFJ
Mike Kelly
Wood Eppelsheimer
Steve Chiles
Barry Butler
Ron Blash
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MaY 1, 2011
Fellow United Pilots For Justice,
As you know last night we regrettably closed the Membership of UPFJ for legal reasons. Thanks to the strong interest and support across a broad spectrum of retired and flying pilots, we have the stature and funds to continue our quest to right the wrongs to our retirement by the United Strategic Bankruptcy.
From the Board and Officers of UPFJ, a sincere thanks for your commitment to take a stand after all the years we had to wait to challenge the damage to our retirement.
A special thanks to our more senior retirees and some pilots still flying, that have supported UPFJ efforts. We owe a special salute to Doug Willsman who worked tirelessly to sort through the complexities of PBGC applications of our funds.
With your support we have a legitimate chance to effect change. As a team, we have managed to launch a serious challenge to the methods United used to abandon their contract with all of us. At the same time we are working with the PBGC to improve applications of ERISA guidelines for PBGC distributions. We are also in a position to participate in the effects brought about by legal actions currently going through the Federal Courts by the USAir pilots and other pilot and industry groups.
We expect a quiet month through May. The PBGC has completed a second internal audit of the United Plan and we should hear news this month, though we don't expect major changes at this point from the PBGC. We do have an ongoing dialogue with the PBGC that may open the possibility of correcting some of the errors of bookkeeping for some of our retired pilots without formal appeals. United, through Kirkland Ellis, has to respond to our Amended Complaint by June 6th, if not before. We do expect the summer to be active, to say the least.
As developments take place, we will keep you posted on the web site and through e-mails when the news is significant.
Win, lose, or draw, we are in the game and feel we are in a strong position to accomplish positive change.
From the Board and Officers of UPFJ.
Mike Kelly
Wood Eppelsheimer
Steve Chiles
Ron Blash
Barry Butler
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
April 8, 2011
It's been quiet for a few weeks; but, we've been busy on the inside of UPFJ. We've been handling the second dues request that is being promptly filled and we thank all of you that have continued to support UPFJ. We are talking to and adding new members to UPFJ as word spreads about our efforts.
We are also proud to announce we've taken the next big step in our fight to recover our A-Plan Benefits from United for the first round.
UPFJ UPDATE
An Amended Complaint against United has now been filed and served. The Amended Complaint adds new members to the Plaintiff List and has added profiles of some of our damaged members that include the 9/11 Widows and other pilots. Some of the text has been amended and improved in critical areas of the Complaint. You will find the Amended Complaint on the web site: www.UnitedPilotsforJustice.com/ UPFJ AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST UNITED. The Amended Complaint includes documents we recently received from PBGC (Exhibit A) that shows, precisely, how United identified the Mileage Plus asset at the time of Plan Termination.
As set out in the Amended Complaint, para. 81, 82, United disclosed its internal "book value" of Mileage Plus ($397 million liability) instead of its "fair market value," which was closer to $7.5 billion, according to the equivalent transaction of Air Canada's Aeroplan spinoff. The PBGC regulations governing this disclosure, PBGC Reg. 4062.4, specifically requires a "fair market value" disclosure. By disclosing at "book value" instead of "fair market value" United violated ERISA.
United has hired Kirkland-Ellis, the same firm that helped plan and execute the Bankruptcy for UAL, as the UAL attorneys. They will accept service of the Amended Complaint on behalf of all defendants. They will have up to 60 days to answer. Their response to our Complaint will determine the direction needed to continue the legal effort. Our attorney is very confident in the strength of our case and we are all looking forward to challenging United.
The PBGC effort will receive a higher degree of focus in the intermittent few weeks. The research to date has supported both the United and PBGC efforts, with the early focus on the United Complaint. We've been receiving a lot of information from the PBGC and expect a lot more in the near term. By the time we have a response from United, we may also have a much better idea about the results of the USAir Flying Eagles as they may have a Court decision by mid to late summer and many of their issues are the same as our PBGC complaints.
LAST DATE TO JOIN UPFJ: APRIL 30th, 2011
We have a last important issue for all your friends that are waiting for a Final Determination Letter from PBGC, the moon to rise (the sky has already fallen), or for whatever reason to decide to join UPFJ.
We are now stopping new memberships of both the UAL Complaint and the PBGC Appeal on April 30th 2011.
If a pilot or his surviving wife decides to try this last chance of recovering our rightful retirement benefits, the pilot or pilot wife MUST sign up before April 30 th , 2011.
Once again this is not a Class Action Suit; you have to be a UPFJ Member to collect any gains made by our efforts. The United Complaint is clearly on behalf of UPFJ Members only.
If your friends don't have their Final Determination Letters, they can join with the required paper work and a dues check of $600. (See Join United on the web site) As soon as they get their Final Determination Letters, they send them to UPFJ and they are registered with the PBGC for UPFJ to handle their appeal extensions and Appeal. Also their Names will be added to the Named Plaintiff List of the United Complaint.
We have come a long way on a small amount of money and will continue on that path. UPFJ has opened the fight with a very Legitimate action that is strong, clear, and very clean. Win or lose, we now have a chance on two playing fields to recover what is ours.
Thanks again for your continued support; you have all made this possible. Don't hesitate to ask questions.
From the Officers and Directors of UPFJ
Mike Kelly
Wood Eppelsheimer
Steve Chiles
Ron Blash
BJ Butler
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
March 5, 2011
PBGC Appeal Process
· New Appeal Deadline. The deadline for filing our consolidated appeal has been extended to July 8, 2011. We will look at this date again in May to see if it should hold, or whether it should be extended again. This is also the deadline for any individual appeal for, e.g., math errors, etc. UPFJ needs to determine in the coming weeks how to best handle individual appeals.
Please note that PBGC will NOT be sending notification of the appeal extension to individual pilots. Instead, PBGC has asked us to notify each member of UPFJ about this extension deadline.
· Estimated Benefit Payments / Final Benefit Payments. Some pilots have received an FDL showing final payments lower than the estimated payments they have been receiving. These pilots are expecting, therefore, to receive lower monthly payments, but the original estimated amount (the higher amount) continues to be paid by PBGC. According to PBGC, the higher estimated payments will continue to be made to each pilot who is part of our consolidated appeal for the duration of the appeal process. I recommend that the excess payment amounts be held in some kind of savings account for the time being, pending final resolution of the appeal. Also, if any pilot who is part of the consolidated appeal has received reductions in payments, they should notify us and we will address the discrepancy with PBGC.
· Math Errors. We are starting to hear from individual pilots that math errors have been made in their FDL showing, e.g., an incorrect time in service. These kind of math errors will almost certainly be fixed by PBGC as part of an individual appeal. UPFJ has not yet decided how to handle individual appeals– whether UPFJ should appeal for each pilot with errors, or whether that pilot should handle the appeal individually. We will have a better idea of how to address this question in the coming weeks as we start to use our internal software that will replicate the PBGC benefit determination process. Once we understand this internal process better, we will let you know the best way for handling individual appeals. If you think a math error has been made in calculating your benefits, please make note of that and forward an email to UPFJ or to legal counsel.
· FDL Timetable. PBGC has issued all but about 80 FDLs for pilots who do not have quadro distributions. They expect to issue these remaining 80 FDLs by the end of March. After that, they will turn to determination of FDLs for pilots who have quadro allocation issues because of a divorce situation. It is very important that you forward us a copy of your FDL as soon as you receive it, so we can notify PBGC that you are a UPFJ member and your appeal extension can be formally acknowledged. Do not assume that just because you joined UPFJ that your extension request has automatically been granted. We still need to forward your FDL to PBGC within 45 days of receipt.
PBGC Discovery Process
· Discovery re: Mileage Plus. Thus far, we have received one completed discovery response from PBGC regarding filings made by UAL Corp. addressing valuation of United Loyalty Services, LLC and Mileage Plus. The upshot is that UAL Corp. disclosed Mileage Plus as a liability, not an asset, notwithstanding PBGC's Reg. 4062 that requires complete fair market valuation information, and otwithstanding that Mileage Plus had obvious value from a FMV standpoint. As asserted in our litigation against UAL, we believe UAL failed in its reporting requirements to PBGC on this issue, and it is a problem that UPFJ, and its members, can address in a lawsuit under ERISA s.4070.
· Discovery re: Benefits Analysis. We also have received a partial discovery response from PBGC that is designed to uncover and understand how PBGC calculated benefits for pilots in various classes. Thus far we have received the PBGC Operating Policy Manual and the PBGC Actuarial Technical Manual. We expect to receive next week the Actuarial Case Memorandum that identifies the various classes of payments and the pilots of our group that belong to each class. We expect to see from these documents, together, the process PBGC used to calculate benefits and arrive at the various formulas that show up in Benefit Calculation Statements. We will also shortly thereafter receive individual Benefits Statements for each pilots showing the calculation formulas for each pilot. These are things we will look at closely to see if a proper appeal challenge exists on one or more of these formulas.
· Discovery re: Master Trust and UAL Recover Money. After the above information is received, we will then obtain the Master Trust Asset Audit Report and the Recovery Allocation Memorandum to see, exactly, how money from the Master Trust and the UAL Recovery Money was divided among the various UAL Trusts. If it turns out that a proper share of money was not paid to the UAL Pilot Plan from either the Master Trust or the Recovery Money, these are areas that will carefully evaluated for appeal.
I am aware that another lawyer for retired UAL Pilots earlier asked for documents re: the Master Trust and Recovery Money allocation. Apparently this request was not honored by PBGC for lack of standing–in other words, an active appeal was not on file. However, it was confirmed today that because we have a formal PBGC appeal in process, information about the Master Trust and UAL Recovery Money will now be properly disclosed.
· Miscellaneous Discovery. Miscellaneous discovery items include things such as Inspector General Batts' Asset Valuation Report, meeting notes for the 11 meetings among UAL, ALPA and PBGC regarding plan termination and documents re: consideration given to a s.4047. restoration. Those will be the last items requested and disclosed.
After we have received and analyzed the PBGC discovery, we will prepare a consolidated appeal addressing any issue that is ripe for appeal. At this point in time, the issues we are looking most closely for are: (a) allocation of the Master Trust, (b) allocation of the UAL Recovery Money, (c) design of the various formulas used in benefits calculations. We are also considering a challenge based on the Age 60 Rule, considering that PBGC regulations do not account for the unusually harsh effect that the FAA Age 60 Rule had on airline pilot retirees. This challenge may be presented as a regulatory error (similar to the argument presented by US Air Pilots in the Davis case) or as an equal protection and due process argument under the Constitution (similar to the argument presented in a non-pension case, Adams v. FAA, pending in US District Court, District of Columbia). While these issues are in the very preliminary formulation stage, we wanted to pass on to UPFJ membership what we are currently viewing as potential areas for consolidated appeal. We are, of course, also closely following the Davis v. PBGC case brought by US Air pilots to see how their arguments are accepted by the District Court judge. Also, suggestion for appeal avenues from UPFJ members or any individual counsel knowledgeable in PBGC law or process are welcome at this preliminary stage.
Kevin McBride
McBride Law, PC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
March 2, 2011
Post from Capt. Barry Butler (UAL Retired), Legal Affairs – United Pilots for Justice (UPFJ):
Recent comments have been made by Denis O'Malley on the RETUP Forum (Retired United Pilots) regarding the efforts of UPFJ and possible ramifications of those actions. In an effort to provide transparency and understanding of our legal filing against United Airlines, we have posted the following response here and will be posted on our website,
www.unitedpilotsforjustice.com.
I urge members and other interested parties to read the Complaint on the UPFJ website. Further questions may be directed to the UPFJ board, if necessary.
UPFJ's lead legal counsel, Kevin McBride, has reviewed the March 1, 2011 RETUP post by Denis O'Malley. Mr. McBride's response follows:
1. The UPFJ complaint against UAL does not accuse UAL of criminal activity. Rather, the complaint accuses UAL and its Board of violations of ERISA for (a) failing to comply with ERISA disclosure regulations regarding value of UAL's subsidiaries and (b) engineering the plan termination in violation of their respective ERISA fiduciary duties. These allegations are all civil (ERISA) violations, not accusations of criminal activity.
2. ERISA fiduciary and disclosure duties are different than bankruptcy court disclosure obligations. As the Seventh Circuit Court explained, the bankruptcy judge did not have jurisdiction to terminate the UAL Pilot Plan. Rather, plan termination was outside of, and separate from, the bankruptcy process. As such, ERISA law governs termination of the plan, not bankruptcy law.
3. Individual plaintiffs have NO risk of personal liability for being part of this lawsuit. Actually, I don't think Mr. O'Malley is even suggesting that is the case. As Mr. O'Malley correctly points out, any lawyer who signs a complaint that is deemed by the Court to be "frivolous" may be subject to sanctions for brining that claim. The complaint is signed by UPFJ lawyers. We signed it because we believe this case has strong merit. This lawsuit is certainly not frivolous.
4. I believe this case has strong merit. United Airlines did a masterful job of tap dancing around UAL enterprise value at the time of plan termination and in bankruptcy, but none of the judges had any idea that so much value was hidden in the Mileage Plus program. We have received discovery from PBGC on this topic, and it is clear that PBGC had no idea how valuable Mileage Plus was because UAL never disclosed that potential value to PBGC. That failure to disclose value to PBGC is at the heart of this lawsuit. PBGC Reg. 4062 requires disclosure of all potential value of subsidiaries, and UAL failed to make a proper disclosure. Therefore, the Plan was terminated based on incorrect information and incorrect assumptions of value. This lawsuit is designed to rectify those mistakes.
In the end, the facts are the facts–Mileage Plus had material value before, during and after plan termination and bankruptcy. This value was required to be independently disclosed under PBGC regulations 4062, and UAL failed to do that. PBGC regulations are entirely independent from the bankruptcy process. Our case is straight-forward and common sense. I think our action will be easier to
understand and accept than the various convoluted arguments that UAL will need to present in order to offer a contrary opinion. For this reason, I like our chances.
5. Mr. O'Malley's suggestion to have this case reviewed by your own personal lawyer, for a second opinion, is a good one. I have already received one such call from a UPFJ member's personal lawyer, and am happy to field any and all other calls from lawyers seeking to understand the case better in behalf of a UPFJ member, as a second opinion. This is always a good idea. Further, if any UPFJ member is not comfortable being part of the plaintiff group, he or she should feel free to drop out of UPFJ membership. We expect to file an amended complaint by approximately March 18 and a final list of plaintiffs by April 30, 2011. If anyone wants to drop out of UPFJ membership, I would ask that they do it before then.
6. The goal of this litigation is to restore the Plan benefits to each individual plaintiff. We are representing only UPFJ members in this case, not the entire pilot group. As I read the law, the statute of limitations may expire on these ERISA claims sometime in May, 2011. Therefore, any pilot who is not part of the group by April 30, 2011 will not be represented, and that pilot's claims will probably (in my view) be barred by the statute of limitations. So if anyone new wants to join UPFJ, this would be the time to join. We will try to obtain a settlement or verdict only in behalf of our limited group–a settlement or verdict amount that will be easily affordable to United Airlines.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Progress Update and Funding Request: February 28, 2011
The Officers and Directors of UPFJ thank our members for their support. The first round of UPFJ funding has accomplished a great deal in research and now preliminary legal action. We continue to implement the legal challenge to United's handling of the United Pilots Defined Benefit Pension Plan (A Plan) at the time of Plan termination. We are also continuing to prepare our consolidated appeal to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) Final Determination Letters, which represent their final assessment of the PBGC benefits due to us.
Legal Complaint against United:
UPFJ filed a complaint in the Federal District Court in Washington DC alleging that United Airlines misrepresented the nature and value of its asset base when asserting its claim to the PBGC that it could no longer support our A Plan. The Complaint filed against United for alleged violations of ERISA law is posted at: UPFJ Complaint against United on the www.unitedpilotsforjustice.com web site.
Among other things, UPFJ alleges that the Frequent Flyer Program known as Mileage Plus was actually a valuable asset as opposed to United's assertion that it was a liability. It appears that United did not follow PBGC reporting regulations when seeking Plan termination. PBGC regulations require complete disclosure of fair market value of all subsidiaries of UAL Corp. Fair market value estimates must include the economic outlook for each subsidiary and the industry and market served by that subsidiary.
In our case, at the exact same time UAL was seeking Plan termination, Air Canada was spinning off partial ownership of its own mileage program, Aeroplan, in a public IPO. The public markets valued the Aeroplan program at US $325 per-member. Based on the number of members in the Mileage Plus program at the time, a comparable per-member valuation would have equated to (approximately) $15 billion for United's Mileage Plus program. Also, a year after the final order terminating our Pension Plan, US investment banks actually disclosed public value estimates for United's Mileage Plus of (approximately) $7.5 billion. We believe this value also existed at the time of Plan termination and should have been disclosed to PBGC.
We have now received back written discovery from PBGC showing that United failed to attach any value to the Mileage Plus program in the Plan termination process and, instead, represented to PBGC that the Mileage Plus subsidiary was a liability.
Our lawsuit against United asserts, among other things, that the Aeroplan IPO value provided clear guidance for the economic outlook for the mileage program industry and markets, and that United's failure to disclose this comparable value was violation of ERISA during the Plan termination process.
The next step in the legal process is for UPFJ to formally "serve" or present the complaint to United. As expected, United's response is professional and will no doubt result in legal challenges to our complaint. UPFJ is prepared for this process. And while PBGC has the right to intervene in our case on one side or the other, we currently do not expect PBGC to intervene.
Ultimately, we believe United will have a hard time explaining to a judge why it failed to disclose the actual fair market value (and comparable valuations) for Mileage Plus when it was seeking Plan termination. For this reason, we are optimistic about our chances in the lawsuit.
PBGC Appeal:
We have an ongoing dialogue with the PBGC regarding issues surrounding our consolidated appeal.
UPFJ continues preparation for the appeal of the PBGC distributions that will challenge the PBGC's application of ERISA Statutes and possible errors in PBGC allocations. As Final Determination letters continue to arrive, a data base is being developed to categorize the multitude of payment levels the PBGC application of ERISA rules has created. This data base will also allow an analysis of individual pilot payouts that may have been in error using the PBGC's own rules. This analysis is needed for UPFJ efforts in both the United Complaint and the PBGC Appeal.
Many of our actions for the PBGC Appeal parallel the US Air retired and flying pilot actions that may be completed in Federal Court in 2011, potentially saving UPFJ large amounts of legal time and effort as their judgments will set legal precedent for our own appeal.
We still need to receive a large number of documents from PBGC that explain how and why benefits were determined. We don't expect to receive all these documents for another few months. Once we have received these documents and analyzed all possible errors in PBGC allocations, we will be able to tell better how the PBGC consolidated appeal will be framed.
Our current deadline for filing a consolidated appeal is April 8, 2011. However, we fully expect this deadline to be moved again, since we cannot prepare and file the appeal until all relevant documents are received from PBGC.
Future Funding: To continue our litigation against United and pursue the PBGC appeal process we must request the next round of funds. It is now time for another fund request to continue our work.
Original Members: For our original members that have already contributed the $300 requested, we request an additional $300 at this time.
New Members: For new members, the request is for $600. This will put everyone at parity.
A prompt response for this funding is needed and appreciated to continue our efforts. Legal activities will be increasing in response to serving the United Complaint and to continue development our PBGC Appeal.
New Members Eligibility: (This gets a bit complicated, send a note to pilotsforjustice@aol.com with questions)
(A)All pilots participating in the A-Plan, retired or flying, at the A-Plan Termination date of Dec 30, 2004, are eligible to join UPFJ.
(B) April 30 th , 2011 is time deadline for new membership for participation in both the United Complaint and PBGC Appeal. Pilots that postpone joining UPFJ beyond April 30th can still join the PBGC only Appeal. Many of you are waiting until you get your FDL's to join. Many of you will not receive your FDL's by April 30th. Your best chance of an increase in benefits it to join before April 30th and participate in both legal actions.
(C) Pilots who have let their PBGC 45 day appeal extension deadline pass may still join to be part of the United Complaint and must join before April 30th, 2011.
For All Members: Associate UPFJ Member Option with limitations
If you chose NOT to Appeal your PBGC FDL, you can elect to NOT be named on the PBGC Appeal and remain in the United Complaint as an Associate with a written request to be removed from the PBGC Appeal.
If you chose NOT to participate in the United Complaint, send a written request to be removed from the United Complaint and to remain in the PBGC Appeal as an Associate. Advise us if you wish to be an Associate Member, in writing, and which Category you desire. Including your check with the written request would be appreciated.
CURRENT MEMBERS:
Send your $300 Check and please update your current address, phone number, and current e-mail address. If you wish to be an Associate Member with limits, include that request in your mailer and send to:
United Pilots For Justice
1712 Skyhawk Ct.
Port Orange, Florida 32128
NEW MEMBERS: See web ite:www.UnitedpilotsforJustice.com, select Join United and see the required information and documents to be sent to the above address.
Contact for questions and comments is: PilotsforJustice@aol.com
From the Officers and Directors of UPFJ:
Mike Kelly
Wood Eppelsheimer
Steve Chiles
Ron Blash
Barry Butler
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
United Pilots for Justice Update: February 2, 2011
Fellow UPFJ Members,
UAL Lawsuit
We filed our Complaint against United on Dec. 29, 2010, but have not yet served the complaint on United (although we have sent a courtesy copy to UAL general counsel).
Our Complaint was filed in the US District Court, District of Columbia. The Judge assigned to our case is Richard W. Roberts. See his biography here (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/roberts)
and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Roberts)
We expect to file an amended complaint by the end of the February that includes all new members. We will then serve that complaint on United, and move the litigation forward.
Membership
Our membership is growing slowly and steadily as more pilots hear about UPFJ and our efforts.
We now have the privilege of representing the four widows of our 4 fellow pilots lost in the 9/11 attacks on our two United planes. Their retirement benefits have been reduced severely and are among the most damaged of our group, on top of losing their husbands and their children's fathers to Terrorists.
They are not only joining UPFJ; but, will bring to our effort their extensive Congressional and Press associations when the time is right. They are truly strong and amazing women. We have found them to be an inspiration.
The Board has adopted a resolution that membership in UPFJ will be open to all United Pilot Plan participants and beneficiaries whose rights are vested. We will be actively accepting new members for approximately another 3 months, after which the Board will consider closing membership in UPFJ (although that determination has not been made yet). So if you are considering joining UPFJ, or you know someone who is, this would be a good time to join.
PBGC Appeal
On the PBGC front, we are still waiting for documents from PBGC that outline the specific calculations that were used in benefits determinations. In the meantime, we have created software tool we can use to simulate benefits, and potential benefits changes. That will be posted on our website in the next week or two. With this software tool in hand, we will start to enter all FDL data that we currently have and start segregating benefits groups as best as possible
(continuing the work that was independently started by Doug Wilsman), pending receipt of more discovery from PBGC. We welcome the help of a few members of our group in this review effort.
Please email us if you are interested in being on a committee to help review FDL information and PBGC documents. The more of this work we can do ourselves, the more money we will save.
Costs and Fundraising
At the moment we have managed to move forward with very reasonable legal costs and still have a healthy treasury balance. We have managed to go far past our original funding request to
research our options without additional fund requests. This outcome is largely due to the creative work and planning being done by our lead attorney, Kevin McBride and being done at a discounted billing structure to help us move ahead without undue financial strains for any of us. As we move forward in the UAL litigation, we expect to do another round of fundraising in the next few months. We expect to do fundraising in increments of $300, and will do everything possible
to continue to manage costs and make these initiatives affordable (and successful) for all.
Continue to monitor the UnitedPilotsForJustice.com Web Site for news that should become more frequent in the near future. If you have questions, comments or suggestions, please forward to:
Pilotsforjuctice@aol.com
With best regards,
The Officers and Directors of UPFJ
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
United Pilots for Justice Update: December 29, 2010
UPFJ Members;
Thank you for your membership contributions which have made possible The United Pilots Defined Benefit Pension Plan research project and PBGC Final Determination Letter appeal analysis. The success of the research needed to promote these projects has resulted in an expansion of our strategic planning and subsequently, the scope of UPFJ.
PRELIMINARY AUDIT OF THE UNITED EMPLOYEE DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN MASTER TRUST. Preliminary results of the UPFJ audit of the United Pilot Defined Benefit Plan Trust have revealed that the management of the Plan appears to be in accordance with standard operating procedures prevalent in this and other similarly situated plans. Additional information with be forthcoming as the audit is finalized.
PBGC FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER APPEAL:
The PBGC FDL Appeal process will begin once the FDLs for all of our members are received. PBGC indicates that it will be several months before all of the FDLs will be processed.
|
Subscribe to newsletter