Skip to main content

U.S. Labor Department sues retirement plan trustees of defunct Alabama wholesaler to recover nearly $900,000 in pension assets

ATLANTA — The U.S. Department of Labor has sued defunct Vinyl-Mark Products Inc. of Hueytown, Ala., and the company's pension and profit sharing plan trustees for allegedly misusing $898,259.69 in plan assets to pay the operating expenses of the company.

The lawsuit alleges that the company, formerly known as First Alabama Supply Co. Inc. and trustees Willard D. Bailey Jr. and Jessie Mae Bailey violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The trustees allegedly made a series of transfers from the plans to the operating accounts of the company at various times between October 2004 and February 2007.

"The department will not tolerate the misuse of workers' retirement savings to subsidize corporate expenses," said Phyllis C. Borzi, assistant secretary of the Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). "Our legal action is designed to ensure these workers are made whole and prevent the trustees from misusing employee benefit plan assets in the future."

The suit seeks a court order to require that all defendants restore all losses incurred by the plans and disgorge any profits or illegal gains, and to appoint an independent fiduciary to oversee the plans. The department also asks that the trustees be permanently barred from serving in a fiduciary capacity to any plan governed by ERISA and that the trustees' retirement accounts be offset to repay losses and lost opportunity costs owed to the plans. Money offset will be re-distributed to the accounts of the remaining participants covered by the plans.

The company was a wholesale distributor of vinyl siding, accessories and windows. It sponsored a defined benefit plan for 59 participants and a profit sharing plan covering 29 participants. As of Dec. 31, 2005, the plans held cumulative assets of $701,361.

Employers and workers can reach the Atlanta Regional Office of the Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration at 404-302-3900 or toll-free at 866-444-3272 for help with problems relating to retirement and health benefits. In fiscal year 2008, EBSA achieved monetary results of $1.2 billion related to the pension, 401(k), health and other benefits for millions of American workers and their families.

Solis v. Vinyl-Mark Products Inc.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...