HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Hostess Brands to termina...

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:30 PM

Hostess Brands to terminate pension plan as part of liquidation

Source: Business Insurance

Hostess Brands Inc., Irving, Texas, will terminate its defined benefit plan, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will assume its liabilities, said Lance Ignon, Hostess spokesman.

The news follows Hostess' announcement on Friday that it will close its business and sell off all its assets.

Hostess suspended payments to the 42 multiemployer pension plans to which it contributes in August 2011. “For active employees, the circumstances differ for each MEPP, so (participants) should contact the administrator of the MEPP” in which they participate, Mr. Ignon said in an email, citing an employee Q&A document. He could not provide further information by press time.

The company's IBC Defined Benefit Plan had about $56 million in assets and $111 million in liabilities as of April 30, according to the PBGC.

Read more: http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20121119/NEWS03/121119909

39 replies, 7101 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hostess Brands to terminate pension plan as part of liquidation (Original post)
antigop Nov 2012 OP
jerseyjack Nov 2012 #1
raccoon Nov 2012 #19
cstanleytech Nov 2012 #25
Debau2005 Nov 2012 #2
awoke_in_2003 Nov 2012 #4
Xyzse Nov 2012 #13
awoke_in_2003 Nov 2012 #26
leftyohiolib Nov 2012 #6
brush Nov 2012 #15
argiel1234 Nov 2012 #36
reteachinwi Nov 2012 #37
jtuck004 Nov 2012 #3
SomeGuyInEagan Nov 2012 #5
antigop Nov 2012 #12
railsback Nov 2012 #7
closeupready Nov 2012 #8
sulphurdunn Nov 2012 #9
byeya Nov 2012 #10
rurallib Nov 2012 #14
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #11
elleng Nov 2012 #16
Fuddnik Nov 2012 #17
closeupready Nov 2012 #27
antigop Nov 2012 #24
elleng Nov 2012 #32
antigop Nov 2012 #33
cstanleytech Nov 2012 #29
abelenkpe Nov 2012 #18
dmosh42 Nov 2012 #21
antigop Nov 2012 #34
Scalded Nun Nov 2012 #20
AzDar Nov 2012 #22
yurbud Nov 2012 #23
tomm2thumbs Nov 2012 #28
antigop Nov 2012 #35
aquart Nov 2012 #30
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2012 #31
antigop Nov 2012 #38
reteachinwi Nov 2012 #39

Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:33 PM

1. PBGC should sue the execs to recover the money they awarded themselves..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:11 PM

19. A-fricking-men! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:42 PM

25. I agree with you there. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Debau2005 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:40 PM

4. Executives always make out...

and when I have to hear the dumbasses at work saying why the pensions must go, I will bring the executive bonuses up. I already know what they will say "well, it is part of their contracts". Yes, they are so diconnected that they will say this to me. They are the same people who said GM union contracts should be voided, but complained when congress was looking at ways to stop bank execs from getting bonuses after the bailout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:14 PM

13. Yes, and Pensions are also part of a contract.

They just choose what contract they prefer to break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xyzse (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:46 PM

26. I am convinced...

that people hate unions because they are not in one. Because they have no say at their jobs, they don't think anyone should have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Debau2005 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:40 PM

6. as usual the top will strip the carcass clean leaving the bones for the workers

 

this "business model" has to go

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:47 PM

15. Romey's Bain business model. Just what he had in store for us. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:48 PM

36. this business model should be made illegal with life imprisonment

 

felony grand larceny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to argiel1234 (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:01 PM

37. Takers

 

Give themselves bonuses and dump the retirement contracts on the taxpayers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:39 PM

3. Here's a link to the PBGC, they can add this plan to the list on the right side of the page.


http://www.pbgc.gov/wr/trusteed/plans.html

So there are thousands of people being paid from here, sometimes not what they were promised, supposedly from premiums (which are not funding the problem since it has grown larger).

This leaves aside the executives who may have paid themselves $20 million, $40 million, $100 million, leaving this wreckage and tragedy behind for the taxpayers without the capacity to strip them of their ill-gotten gains, wherein they profited by walking away from their bills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:40 PM

5. Two must-reads from DailyKos blogs ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomeGuyInEagan (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 01:00 PM

12. Thanks -- I hadn't seen those. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:40 PM

7. That was ALWAYS the plan

 

Willard showed us all how its done: Buy up, saddle company with that debt, overpay execs, and liquidate, leaving the tax payer to make up the difference (i.e. pensions). Reforming vulture capitalism would seem to be imperative, as in not letting them pile their 'investment capital' onto the company they're purchasing. That's just wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:42 PM

8. Yes, this is exactly correct. Also,

it explains why so many conservatives were fine with Romney's evasion of questions about when he would release his tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:47 PM

9. What investment group

of parasites bought and decided to liquidate Hostess for profit? Apparently, elections have consequences for everyone but vulture capitalists. I'd be interested to know how much money that putrescent vulture Mitt Romney made losing his bid to be liquidator and chief of the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:47 PM

10. So I have to pay for the pensions and so do you and you and you so that a few capitalists

 

can further enrich themselves to the detriment of the USA and its rank and file citizens.

I agree with the person who said the full weight of the Justice Dept should come down on the vultures, impound their assets pending a trial(s), and make them pay for the promises made to the workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:38 PM

14. "Externalizing costs" isn't that the biz phrase

every exec who caused this implosion should not get one dime until all worker pensions have been met.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:57 PM

11. But of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:47 PM

16. Not so fast. Its 'plan' must be approved in U.S. Bankruptcy Court first,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:06 PM

17. Unfortunately, from experience in two of them,

They're just about always approved by the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #17)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:46 PM

27. Yup.

I think it's likely that it will be approved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:33 PM

24. Where do you get the idea it won't be approved? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:12 PM

32. Article I linked to says:

"The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:19 PM

33. Well, the PBGC opposed the termination of pensions from American Airlines

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20120205/NEWS03/302059981

Maybe the PBGC will object to the termination of the Hostess pensions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:47 PM

29. As it should.

Especially after I read the part where it says "The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders." as it is totally immoral and unacceptable that the company would still seek to reward failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:08 PM

18. This should be illegal

I'm not sure why it's OK to break a contract with workers but not with fucking overpaid executives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:15 PM

21. There is a bill(HR-1322) that has been sitting in the house since at least 2008, which would do....

just what you say. Protect the funds for retirees who have been promised those payments. But the corporate powers have such a hold on Congress, it can't make it to the floor for a vote. And that includes the period when the Dems controlled the housein 08 &'09.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:22 PM

34. This HR 1322?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:14 PM

20. Here, my friends, are your rat bastard 'Job Creators'

The only creating they do is for their own benefit. If workers get jobs, maybe even benefits, then that is really collateral damage to their plans (but they will live with that until they figure out a way to recoup much of that as well, pretty much what is going on here). They do not give a rat's ass about anyone but themselves, and until something gets put into place in this country this is all anyone should ever expect.
They are evil, treasonous, black-hearted minions of the Devil (for those non-religious readers just substitute your own word for the Devil).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:16 PM

22. K & R &

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:17 PM

23. so it's all a scam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:47 PM

28. So shed all $ obligations, re-sell the company to a 'new' company of the same execs with new name?


and then start making them at obscene profits paid to themselves & stockholders in a low-wage right-to-work state... all the while knowing it was the plan all along with the added benefit of shedding blame to the unions?

Sounds about right, no?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tomm2thumbs (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:22 PM

35. DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNA! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:50 PM

30. That should be so illegal you get hanged for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:54 PM

31. Taxpayers bail out another corporation.

Private profit and public risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:41 PM

38. the PBGC covers pensions of bankrupt companies. IT IS NOT FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS!

http://www.pbgc.gov/about/how-pbgc-operates.html

PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #38)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:46 PM

39. Thank you

 

for straightening me out and for the work you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread