Are Mullane's due process standards limited to notice in lawsuits and Petitioners' objections to the plan sponsor notice of withdrawal liability unfounded?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The sponsor of a multiemployer pension fund issued a notice of withdrawal liability to contributing employers prior to a suit to collect the claim under the Employer Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Petitioners challenged the notice, claiming it violated their rights to due process under this Court’s decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). Specifically, Petitioners claimed (a) the notice misstated control group liability and failed to apprise them of mandatory arbitration under ERISA, and (b) no notice was given the employers’ co-owners from whom the plan sponsor sought recovery, even though the identities of the co-owners was known or easily ascertainable. The District Court found Mullane inapplicable and that the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Central States S.E. & S.W. Area Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1373 (7 Cir. 1992), provided the applicable due process standard, allowing it to review the control group issue where a party “has absolutely no reason to believe they might be members of a control group.” It went on to find on the merits that the co-owners and other entities owned by them were liable. In affirming the District Court, the Seventh Circuit held that Mullane was limited to court cases, that Slotky provided an appropriate framework and standard and that Petitioners suffered no harm because they were found liable on the merits. Three questions are presented: (1) Are Mullane’s due process standards limited to notice in lawsuits and Petitioners’ objections to the plan sponsor notice of withdrawal liability unfounded? u (2) Is Slotky a reasonable substitute for the due process articulated by this Court in Mullane? (8) Does the District Court’s finding against the Petitioners on the merits obviate their right to due process?