Whether the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation can impose 'reasonable conditions' on multiemployer pension plans that deviate from the express statutory formula for calculating withdrawal liability under ERISA

No question identified. : 1. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rendered its decision on September 16, 2025 (Exhibit 1). No petition for rehearing was filed. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 2. This case involves two important legal questions concerning fundamental aspects of ERISA’s meticulous statutory scheme. First, whether the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) can—through the auspices of imposing “reasonable conditions” on multiemployer pension plans (MEPPs) under 29 U.S.C. § 1432(m)(1)— direct MEPPs to exclude certain plan assets from the formula in 29 U.S.C. § 1393(c) when calculating an employer’s withdrawal liability, even though that statutory formula expressly includes plan assets as an input. Second, whether MEPPs can calculate a withdrawing employer’s allocable unfunded vested benefits and annual payments through methods that deviate from statutory requirements without obtaining the PBGC’s approval. 3. In answering both questions in the affirmative, the Third Circuit’s opinion adds to multiple circuit splits, including one already before this Court in a merits case pending this Term, see M & K Emp. Sols., LLC v. Trs. of the IAM Nat'l Pension Fund, 145 S. Ct. 2871 (2025). By upholding the PBGC’s regulations and by allowing MEPPs to deviate from statutorily prescribed methods at critical parts of the withdrawal liability calculations, the court improperly condoned agency overreach that defies Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). Relatedly, the court below erroneously elevated purpose-based vagaries over clear statutory text. If allowed to stand, the Third Circuit’s opinion will upend the carefully prescribed framework that Congress enacted around withdrawal liability—to the economic detriment of American businesses, American employees, and ultimately the American government itself. 4. Good cause for the requested extension exists because of the intervening holidays and because counsel of record for Applicants, Derek L. Shaffer, has been undertaking and will continue to undertake substantial briefing obligations in other cases, including a brief in opposition to certiorari in Citigroup Inc. v. Otto Candies, LLC, et al., No. 25-391 (U.S.), filed on December 3, 2025, a response brief on the merits in Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Litd., et al., No. 24983 (U.S.), due on December 17, 2025, and multiple other briefs due in lower federal courts and state courts across the country. Amidst these briefing deadlines and court commitments are counsel’s plans for the upcoming year-end holidays. 5. Applicants therefore respectfully request a 60-day extension for counsel to prepare a petition fully addressing the complex issues surrounding ERISA and withdrawal liability raised by the decision below and framing those issues in a manner most helpful to the Court. For the foregoing reasons, Applicants request that an extension of time to and including February 13, 2026, be granted within which Applicants may file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Respectfully submitted, GEORGE W. HICKS, JR. DEREK L. SHAFFER KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Counsel of Record 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART Washington, DC 20004 & SULLIVAN, LLP (202) 389-5000 1300 I St. NW, Ste. 900 george. hicks@kirkland.com Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 538-8000 Counsel for Petitioners-Debtors and _ Debtors in Possession Counsel for Petitioners MFN Partners, LP and Mobile Street Holdings, LLC December 5, 2025 EXHIBIT 1 Case: 25-1421 Document: 103 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025 PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 25-1421 IN RE: YELLOW CORPORATION, et al., Debtors MFN PARTNERS LP; MOBILE STREET HOLDINGS LLC; YELLOW CORPORATION Appellants On Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Bankruptcy Court No. 23-11069) Bankruptcy Judge: Honorable Craig T. Goldblatt Argued June 25, 2025 Before: SH