The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower court victory for the International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund in a dispute with Florida Glass of Tampa Bay, Inc. and numerous related corporate entities. The January 26, 2026 opinion strengthens pension fund enforcement capabilities under federal labor law.
The case, *International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund v. Florida Glass of Tampa Bay, Inc.* (4th Cir. 2026), involved a complex web of defendants including Florida Glass of Tampa Bay, Inc., which had been dissolved, along with 10 other corporate entities. Many of the defendant companies had also been dissolved or were limited liability companies, presenting enforcement challenges for the pension fund.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote the unanimous opinion for the three-judge panel, which also included Judge Andre M. Davis and Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan. The court's decision came after oral arguments held December 10, 2025, in an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
The pension fund was represented by Terry Nelson in his official capacity as a fiduciary, alongside the fund itself as plaintiff. The case originated in the District of Maryland before Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, who ruled in favor of the pension fund in the underlying litigation.
The Fourth Circuit's opinion began by noting that multiemployer pension plans represent "cooperative endeavors" requiring broad employer participation to function effectively. Judge Wilkinson wrote that for such plans to succeed, "many employers—sometimes thousands—must share the burden of funding" the retirement benefits.
This case highlights ongoing challenges pension funds face when pursuing collection actions against employers who have dissolved their corporate entities or restructured their business operations. The presence of multiple dissolved corporations among the defendants suggests the pension fund was pursuing successor liability theories or piercing the corporate veil to reach assets and responsible parties.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, commonly known as ERISA, provides the legal framework for pension fund enforcement actions. Under ERISA, employers who participate in multiemployer pension plans have continuing obligations to contribute to those plans according to the terms of collective bargaining agreements.
Corporate dissolution does not automatically eliminate pension fund obligations, particularly when successor entities continue business operations or when corporate formalities were not properly observed. Courts frequently examine whether dissolved corporations were merely attempting to evade legitimate pension fund claims through strategic restructuring.
The Fourth Circuit covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. This decision will serve as binding precedent for pension fund enforcement actions throughout the circuit, particularly those involving dissolved corporations and complex corporate structures.
Pension funds have increasingly pursued aggressive collection strategies against non-contributing employers, recognizing that underfunding threatens the retirement security of thousands of workers. The International Painters and Allied Trades represents workers in the painting, glazing, and related construction trades, making contributions from glass installation companies like Florida Glass of Tampa Bay critical to plan funding.
The case was argued by experienced ERISA counsel from both sides. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP represented the defendants, with Peter B. Siegal arguing the appeal and Joseph E. Simmons and Gregory J. Ossi on the brief. Tucker Arensberg PC represented the pension fund, with Brian A. Pepicelli arguing and Neil J. Gregorio on the brief.
The timing of this decision, early in 2026, may reflect the court's recognition of the importance of pension fund enforcement to retirement security. With many multiemployer pension plans facing funding challenges, successful collection actions become increasingly vital to plan sustainability.
This affirmance suggests the district court properly applied ERISA's enforcement provisions and potentially successor liability doctrines to hold the various defendant entities responsible for pension contributions. The complexity of the defendant structure, involving multiple dissolved corporations and limited liability companies, indicates sophisticated legal maneuvering that the courts ultimately rejected.
The decision reinforces that corporate dissolution and complex business structures cannot serve as shields against legitimate pension fund claims. Employers who benefit from union labor remain accountable for negotiated pension contributions even after corporate restructuring or dissolution.
For pension funds nationwide, this decision provides important precedent supporting aggressive enforcement actions against dissolved corporations and their successor entities. The Fourth Circuit's affirmance sends a clear signal that courts will not permit employers to escape pension obligations through corporate manipulation.
The case also demonstrates the ongoing vitality of ERISA's enforcement mechanisms in protecting worker retirement benefits. As multiemployer pension plans continue facing financial pressures, successful collection actions like this one become essential tools for maintaining plan solvency and protecting participant benefits.