Photo of David M. Pixley

David M. Pixley is a principal in the Cleveland, Ohio office of Jackson Lewis P.C. His practice focuses on employee benefits and ERISA litigation.

David’s practice includes counseling clients on all aspects of employee benefits and ERISA litigation involving single employer and multiemployer benefit plans.

In addition to his extensive courtroom experience, David routinely advises and counsels clients with regard to employee benefit plan compliance, administration, participant disclosures, reporting and drafting requirements under ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, ACA, HIPAA and COBRA. David assists clients in correcting errors under the IRS’ Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System and the DOL’s Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program. He also advises employers and investors on multiemployer benefit plan issues that arise during a corporate restructuring and in the context of M&A transactions.

Prior to joining Jackson Lewis, David served as outside Fund Counsel to multiemployer pension and welfare plans and has extensive experience with employer withdrawal liability, payroll audits, and delinquent contribution matters. He routinely speaks and writes about the issues facing employers contributing to and exiting multiemployer plans.

At the Ohio State University, he was a member of the Rugby Football Club. After law school, prior to beginning his career as an attorney, David was deployed as a member of the Ohio Army National Guard and awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

It’s no secret that the statutory deck under ERISA is stacked heavily in favor of multiemployer pension plans (MEPPs) and against employers contributing to (or withdrawing from) Taft-Hartley trust funds. For example, an employer who receives a demand to pay its alleged allocable share of a multiemployer pension plan’s unfunded vested benefits (Withdrawal Liability) will

The use of the “Segal Blend” to calculate a company’s withdrawal liability when it withdrew from a multiemployer pension plan violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), because it was not the actuary’s best estimate, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati has held in

As a general rule, an asset purchaser does not assume the seller’s liabilities, including its ERISA obligations. Courts, however, have formulated an exception to this general rule via the doctrine of successor liability.  Successor liability is an equitable doctrine requiring a court to “strike a proper balance between on the one hand preventing wrongdoers from