Quad/Graphics, Inc. v. Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters National Pension Fund
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The court upholds the arbitration award in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion to enforce the award in part 21 is granted, as is Defendant's motion to enforce, in part, the arbitration award 28 . Both parties' motions are denied to the extent that they seek to vacate or modify, in part, the arbitration award. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 9/30/2016. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (etv, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS
CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
(GCC-IBT), NATIONAL PENSION PLAN,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 15 C 3439
Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Quad/Graphics, Inc. is a Wisconsin printing company and the successor to
another printer, World Color, previously known as Quebecor World. 1
Some of Quad’s
employees were covered by a collective bargaining agreement that required Quad to make
contributions to Defendant Graphic Communications Conference of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters National Pension Plan (“the Fund”), a defined-benefit pension plan
that services the unionized printing industry. As World Color’s successor, Quad is responsible
for its liabilities, including money owed to the Fund as a penalty for partially withdrawing from
the pension during a plan year. This case involves two such partial withdrawals: the first stems
from the closure of four facilities, including one in Alden, Illinois (“the Alden partial withdrawal”)
during the 2006-2007 plan year, and the other relates to a closure in Memphis, Tennessee,
during either the 2008-2009 or 2009-2010 plan year (this distinction is at the heart of the parties’
dispute). Defendant Fund assessed Quebecor $12.4 million for the Alden partial withdrawal
shortly before Quebecor filed for bankruptcy in January 2008. Quebecor gradually slowed down
operations at its Memphis plant throughout 2008, and the facility finally shuttered in April 2009,
1
Quebecor declared bankruptcy in 2008 and emerged from bankruptcy in 2009
with a new name: World Color. Quad/Graphics acquired World Color and assumed its liabilities
on July 2, 2010. For the sake of simplicity, the court refers to all three companies as “Quad”
except in instances where a distinction between the companies is relevant.
triggering another partial withdrawal liability (“the Memphis partial withdrawal”). By April 2011,
Quad had shut down all of its remaining operations with employees covered by the Fund,
causing a complete withdrawal.
Under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (“MPPAA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 13811461, an employer’s withdrawal liability is roughly equal to its proportionate share of the plan’s
“unfunded vested benefits.” Where, as here, an employer has existing withdrawal liability, any
additional liability that is assessed in a subsequent plan year must be reduced by the
employer’s pre-existing liability.
The purpose of this reduction, or “credit,” is to prevent
employers from being double-charged. On December 15, 2011, Defendant assessed Quad
$18,255,808 in withdrawal liability for the Memphis partial withdrawal and the complete
withdrawal. That assessment gave Quad a partial credit for its Alden withdrawal liability, based
on the fact that a portion of that liability would be discharged in bankruptcy (the exact amount is
yet to be determined by the bankruptcy court). Quad moved to compel arbitration pursuant to §
4221 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) on two issues: (1) On what
date did the Memphis partial withdrawal occur? (The timing is important because of Quebecor’s
July 2009 bankruptcy order.)
(2) How much credit should Quad receive for the Alden
withdrawal liability?
After a two-day hearing, the arbitrator’s award (1) pegged April 30, 2010 as the date of
the Memphis partial withdrawal and (2) determined that the Fund was required to reassess
Quad’s liability for that withdrawal, giving “100% credit for the Alden partial withdrawal liability.”
Quad subsequently filed this suit seeking to enforce the first part of the arbitration award and
vacate or modify the second part. The Fund filed a counterclaim, seeking the opposite: the
Fund agrees with the arbitrator that April 30, 2010 is the date of the Memphis partial withdrawal,
but believes that allowing Quad full credit for the Alden withdrawal is improper. For the reasons
stated below, the court enforces the arbitration award in its entirety.
2
BACKGROUND
I.
Factual history
The arbitrator made detailed factual findings. Those findings are not disputed and are
set forth here in full:
Quebecor World (USA) was a commercial printing business that operated
eight facilities in a number of different cities and states, including Alden and
Memphis. The company employed workers, some of whom were covered by a
collective bargaining agreement that required contributions to the Fund, a TaftHartley defined benefit pension plan. The Fund’s plan year runs from May 1
through April 30.
The Fund assessed withdrawal liability of $12.4 million against Quebecor
for the partial withdrawals that occurred when four facilities, including Alden,
ceased to operate in the 2006-2007 plan year. In January, 2008 Quebecor filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and on December 4, 2008, the Fund filed a proof of
claim
. . . against the Debtor for withdrawal liability, jointly and severally,
with other Quebecor World controlled companies as a result of the
Debtor’s partial withdrawal and a contingent claim in the event that
the Quebecor World controlled group permanently cease to have
an obligation to contribute to the Fund.
Quebecor continued to employ photoengravers and electrician/machinists
at its Memphis facility into 2008 and it made contributions to the Fund on their
behalf. The contributions were required by Article 24 of the 2007-2012 collective
bargaining agreement between Quebecor and the GCC/IBT Local 223M, which
stated:
Effective during the pay week following the execution of this
Agreement, the Company shall increase the amount of money
equal to eight (8%) of the straight time weekly wages earned by
each Employee covered by the Agreement to eight and sixteen
one hundredths (8.16%) percent, and remit same to the . . . Fund
. . . The term “wages” as used herein shall mean all monies
earned by an Employee including pay for skill or merit premiums,
shift differentials, holidays, vacations, and any other straight time
wages paid under this Agreement.
In February, 2008, Quebecor shut down part of the Memphis facility and
by November, 2008, it had made the decision to shut down the entire operation
in 2009. This plan was communicated to the leadership of the GCC, including
President George Tedeschi, who was also the co-chair of the Fund Board of
Trustees.
On December 17, 2008, Fund Counsel Peter Leff sent to Fund
Administrator George Smetana proposed revisions in the Employer Withdrawal
3
Notice and Program Manual that had been under discussion. Each document
contained a myriad of small changes that Smetana testified had been suggested
by counsel and others for clarification. Among the changes were the insertion of
two commas in Section III. Identification of Withdrawal Liability, which now read:
5. An employer will be deemed to have partially withdrawn from
the Fund if, on the last day of a plan year, there is a 70 percent or
greater contribution decline for such plan year or there is a partial
cessation the employer’s contribution obligation.
(a) The Fund office shall identify when a partial withdrawal
has occurred. . .
(b) The Fund office shall consult with Fund Legal Counsel
if there is any question as to whether a partial withdrawal
has occurred and an employer’s specific withdrawal date.
[underscoring added]
The Program Manual was ultimately sent to participating employers with the
notation that it was effective May 1, 2008.
On March 3, 2009, Quebecor notified the 110 employees in Memphis,
including six electricians, four machinists and nine photoengravers, as well as the
Local 223M representative, that it expected to close the Memphis facility on April
16, 2009. Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN)
(29 U.S.C. §2102(a)), companies with over 100 employees “shall not order a
plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer
serves written notice of such an order.” Section 2014(a) mandates that
employers who give less than the requisite notice shall be liable for the back pay
and benefits for the balance of the sixty days. Quebecor’s notice to the affected
employees stated that they would be permanently laid off effective the week of
April 13, “. . . However, you will receive your full, straight time pay and benefits
for the equivalent of your workweek through pay period ending May 3, 2009.”
The last day of work for the remaining photoengravers was actually
April 19, after which their work was transferred to a Quebecor facility that was not
subject to Fund contributions. The final check for wages and benefits was issued
on May 9. Vacation and personal day payments were also made on that day.
Quebecor’s last contribution to the Fund based on payments to employees in
May, 2009, who were listed on the remittance report as having a termination date
of May 3, was sent on June 2 and received on June 9, 2009.
On June 19 the Fund filed in Bankruptcy Court its objections to the
treatment of the Alden claim in the latest Reorganization Plan. After discussions
with the Fund’s bankruptcy counsel, Quebecor’s counsel sent the following email:
Per our discussions, set forth below find the language we
discussed for inclusion in the Confirmation Order. In addition, this
will also confirm the Debtors’ agreement to treat the Funds’ unpaid
withdrawal liability claims as Class 3 claims in an amount equal to
66% of the allowed amount of such claims. Finally, we will modify
4
the Plan to make it clear that the Debtors are not seeking to
discharge future withdrawal liabilities. In this regard, please
confirm that we have now resolved your objections so we can
advise the Court accordingly.
Quebecor’s counsel confirmed to the bankruptcy judge in a subsequent
proceeding that the Plan had been modified to reflect that it was not the Debtor’s
intention to discharge any future withdrawal liability.
The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Reorganization
Plan, as modified, on July 2, 2009. The Plan became effective on July 21, 2009,
and after changing its name to World Color (USA), Quebecor emerged from
bankruptcy. Except as provided for in the Plan, all claims, including those for
which no proof of claim had been filed, were deemed to be satisfied, discharged,
and released.
The Fund followed its usual practice of sending an Employer Withdrawal
Liability Questionnaire to Quebecor on September 29, 2009 because it had
ceased making contributions on behalf of the photoengravers’ unit at Memphis.
During the balance of the 2009-2010 plan year, World Color continued to make
contributions to the Fund on behalf of two members of the Machinist/Electrician
unit in Memphis and covered employees at other facilities. On July 2, 2010,
Quad/Graphics acquired World Color and assumed its liabilities.
Between December, 2010 and April, 2011, Quad ceased employing the
two remaining people in Memphis, and shut down covered operations in its
Jonesboro and Waukee facilities, triggering a complete withdrawal from the
Fund. On December 15, 2011, the Fund assessed Quad $18,255,808 in
withdrawal liability for the Memphis partial withdrawal and the complete
withdrawal. The Memphis partial withdrawal was deemed to have occurred in
the May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010 plan year.
The total assessment was calculated giving Quad 100% credit for the
Alden partial assessment, pursuant to the Fund’s reading of 29 U.S.C.
§1386(b)(1). Quad submitted a Request for Review on March 13, 2012.
Reasoning that it expected to receive only 66% of the withdrawal liability
assessed for the Alden partial withdrawal, the Fund reduced the Alden credit to
66%, resulting in an increase in the total assessment to $19,805,362.
(Arbitration Award, Ex. K to Arbitration Record, hereinafter “AR,” at 2-6.)
II.
Procedural history
Quad issued an arbitration demand on November 21, 2013, pursuant to § 4221 of
ERISA. (Ex. A to Arbitration Record, hereinafter “AR.”) The parties proceeded to arbitration,
and a two-day hearing was held before an arbitrator on November 18 and 19, 2014. Based on
the factual findings set forth above, the arbitrator entered an award favorable to the Fund in one
5
respect, but favorable to Quad in another. Specifically, the arbitrator reached the following
conclusions:
The Memphis partial withdrawal occurred on April 30, 2010, the last day
of the 2009-2010 plan year. The Fund acted properly under MPPAA in assessing
partial withdrawal liability based on that date.
The Fund erred by failing to give Quad full credit for the Alden partial
withdrawal liability. The Fund shall reassess Quad’s Memphis partial withdrawal
liability and the subsequent complete withdrawal liability giving 100% credit for
the Alden partial withdrawal liability. A new payment schedule shall be
developed, taking into account the interim payments already made by Quad.
(Arbitration Award, Ex. K to AR, at 1.)
Quad filed this suit in April 2015, seeking to enforce in part and vacate in part the award.
Specifically, Quad takes issue with the arbitrator’s conclusion that its Memphis partial
withdrawal occurred on April 30, 2010. It argues that the withdrawal occurred months earlier,
when the Memphis plant ceased operations. Quad agrees with the arbitrator, however, that it
should receive full credit for its Alden withdrawal. The Fund filed a counterclaim, seeking to
enforce the part of the arbitrator’s award placing the Memphis withdrawal on April 30, 2010, but
asking that the court vacate or modify the arbitrator’s conclusion that Quad is entitled to full
credit for its Alden liability.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard of Review
An arbitrator decides facts by a preponderance, and his findings of fact may be set aside
only if clearly erroneous. See Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension
Plan, 3 F.3d 994, 999 (7th Cir. 1993) (interpreting 29 U.S.C. § 1401(c)). The same standard
holds for the arbitrator's application of law to fact. Id.; Chicago Truck Drivers Pension Fund v.
Louis Zahn Drug Co., 890 F.2d 1405, 1409-1411 (7th Cir. 1989). But the arbitrator's legal
conclusions are subject to de novo review. Id.; Trustees of Iron Workers Local 473 Pension
Trust v. Allied Products Corp., 872 F.2d 208, 211-212 (7th Cir. 1989).
6
The arbitrator’s award here hinged on the interpretation of two sections of the MPPAA:
29 U.S.C. §§ 1385 and 1386. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. These are
questions of law, which the court will review de novo.
II.
The Memphis partial withdrawal occurred on April 30, 2010
The arbitrator found that the Memphis partial withdrawal was effective on April 30, 2010,
the last day of the 2009-2010 plan year.
Quad argues, however, that the actual date of
withdrawal was May 3, 2009, the date on which its obligation to contribute on behalf of its
Memphis employees ceased.
For support, it points to the statutory language of 29
U.S.C. §§ 1385(a)-(b).
Section 1385(a) states, in relevant part, that “Except as otherwise provided in this
section, there is a partial withdrawal by an employer from a plan on the last day of a plan year if
for such plan year—(1) there is a 70-percent contribution decline, or (2) there is a partial
cessation of the employer’s contribution obligation.” 29 U.S.C. § 1385(a). Section 1385(b)(2)
goes on to provide that:
[t]here is a partial cessation of the employer's contribution obligation for the plan
year if, during such year—
(i) the employer permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute
under one or more but fewer than all collective bargaining agreements
under which the employer has been obligated to contribute under the plan
but continues to perform work in the jurisdiction of the collective
bargaining agreement of the type for which contributions were previously
required . . . or
(ii) an employer permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute
under the plan with respect to work performed at one or more but fewer
than all of its facilities, but continues to perform work at the facility of the
type for which the obligation to contribute ceased.
Subsections (c) and (d) describe special treatment applicable to plans covering the retail food
industry and to particular types of pension plans not relevant here.
The arbitrator concluded that a partial withdrawal must be deemed to have occurred on
the last day of a plan year if there has been a 70% contribution decline or a partial cessation
7
during that year. Quad disagrees with this interpretation. It argues that the phrase “the last day
of a plan year” in § 1385(a) “has no application in the partial cessation context because of the
prefatory language . . . : ‘Except as otherwise provided in this section . . . .’ It is ‘otherwise
provided’ in subsection (b)(2) . . . that a partial cessation withdrawal occurs ‘during’ a plan year.”
(Pl.’s Opening Br. [21] at 12.) In other words, Quad understands § 1385 to establish different
occurrence dates for withdrawals triggered by a 70% decline in contributions (the “last day” of
the plan year) and for partial cessation withdrawals (“during” the plan year at the moment of the
cessation).
This is an unnecessarily tortured reading of the law. As the arbitrator noted, a “far more
reasonable reading of the statute is that the [prefatory language] refers to the special treatment
afforded the retail food industry in [1385](c) and a 26 U.S.C. § 404(c) plan in [1385](d).”
(Arbitration Award at 10.)
The arbitrator’s interpretation is also supported by the legislative
history of § 1385. The relevant committee reports from both the House and Senate stated that
“whenever an event giving rise to a partial withdrawal occurs, the date of the partial withdrawal
would be the last day of the plan year in which the event takes place.” House Committee on
Education and Labor, 96th Cong., Legis. Hist. of Pub. L. No. 96-364: Multiemployer Pension
Plan Amendments (Comm. Print Feb. 18, 1980), 1980 WL 355713 at *9; Subcommittee on
Private Pension Plans and Employee Fringe Benefits of the Senate Finance Committee,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Plan Termination Insurance for Multiemployer Pension
Plans. 96th Cong., Legis. Hist. of Pub. L. 96-364 (Comm. Print March 14, 1980), 1980 WL
355715 at *12.
Quad has consistently argued that the Fund was motivated by a desire to maximize the
assessed liability by bringing the partial withdrawal date past the bankruptcy discharge in July
2010. As Quad sees things, the Fund is “attempting to assert an incorrect interpretation of
ERISA [to] impair the Debtor’s entitlement to the benefits of the ‘fresh start’ intended by
Congress . . . under the Bankruptcy Code.” (Pl.’s Opening Br. at 20.) But, as the Fund points
8
out, it believes that the Memphis partial withdrawal arose after confirmation of the reorganization
plan here. (Def.’s Reply Br. at 2.) Thus, although nothing in ERISA shall be construed to “alter,
amend, modify, invalidate, impair, or supersede” any law or regulation of the United States, 29
U.S.C. §114(d), the Fund’s interpretation of § 1385 is irrelevant to Quad’s bankruptcy.
Finally, Quad argues that if the court determines that partial withdrawals can occur only
on the last date of a plan year, then the Memphis partial withdrawal occurred April 30, 2009, the
last date of the 2009 plan year. (Pl.’s Opening Br. at 26.) Quad relies on the language in
ERISA § 4205(a) and (b)(2)(A)(i); those provisions state that partial withdrawal occurs when the
employer ceases to have an obligation to contribute, not when the employer ceases to make
payments. But even if the court agrees with Quad that the partial withdrawal occurs when the
obligation to contribute ceases, then the partial withdrawal still occurred in the 2009-2010 plan
year because Quad’s obligation to contribute to the fund continued until the employees received
their final check for wages and benefits on May 9, 2009.
The arbitrator correctly concluded that the Memphis partial withdrawal occurred on
April 30, 2010, the final day of the 2009-10 plan year. That aspect of the arbitration award will
be enforced.
III.
Quad is entitled to 100% credit for the Alden partial withdrawal
The arbitrator also determined that “[t]he Fund erred by failing to give Quad full credit for
the Alden partial withdrawal liability,” even though a significant portion of that liability will be
discharged in Quebecor’s pending bankruptcy. (Arbitration Award at 1.) The Fund objects,
arguing that Quad should receive credit only for the percentage of the Alden liability that actually
gets paid off through the bankruptcy process (i.e., the portion that is not discharged). (Def.’s
Opening Br. [28] at 36.) For its part, Quad insists that enforcing the arbitration award is the only
way to honor the bankruptcy process. It argues that anything less than full credit for the Alden
liability, regardless of how much of that debt is actually paid, would essentially render Quad
liable for debts discharged in bankruptcy. (Pl.’s Reply Br. [30] at 28.)
9
The disputed statutory text comes from 29 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1), which states, in relevant
part, as follows:
In the case of an employer that has withdrawal liability for a partial withdrawal
from a plan, any withdrawal liability of that employer for a partial or complete
withdrawal from that plan in a subsequent plan year shall be reduced by the
amount of any partial withdrawal liability (reduced by any abatement or reduction
of such liability) of the employer with respect to the plan for a previous plan year.
Neither this statute nor the relevant regulations—29 C.F.R. § 4206, et seq.—explicitly
address the intersection between the ERISA/MPPAA and bankruptcy law that is presented here.
But § 4206.1 does clarify that “[t]he purpose of the credit [for previous liabilities] is to protect a
withdrawing employer from being charged twice for the same unfunded vested benefits of the
plan. The reduction in the credit protects the other employers in the plan from becoming
responsible for unfunded vested benefits properly allocable to the withdrawing employer.”
As the Fund points out, the enforcement of the arbitrator’s ruling would run afoul of this
purpose: other employers will become responsible for vested benefits that are unfunded as a
result of Quad’s withdrawals. (Def.’s Opening Br. at 38.) Defendant argues that Congress
included in § 1386(b)(1) a mechanism to avoid this exact outcome, by requiring that an
employer’s credit for previous withdrawal liability be “reduced by any abatement or reduction of
such liability.” The discharge of Quad’s debt in bankruptcy, the Fund contends, is just such a
reduction.
The arbitrator was not persuaded by this reading. He concluded that “[t]he parenthetical
statement that the credit shall be reduced by any abatement or reduction of such liability is
inapplicable here [because t]he Fund never abated or reduced the Alden liability, [r]ather the
claim for payment of the assessment was discharged.” (Arbitration Award at 17) In other words,
“the total amount of partial withdrawal liability attributable to the Alden partial withdrawals was
not extinguished, the Fund merely lost the ability to sue to collect the full amount.”
Instead, the arbitrator’s award hinged on “the express language of the statute[, which]
states that the withdrawal liability for a subsequent partial or complete withdrawal shall be
10
reduced by the amount of any partial withdrawal liability. It does not say reduced by the amount
paid of any partial withdrawal liability.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) This court is unwilling to
conclude that the statute “express[ly]” supports the arbitrator’s conclusion. For instance, the
arbitrator’s interpretation relies, without support, on the notion that an “abatement or reduction”
is relevant under § 1386 only if it is executed by the Fund. (Id. (finding that the reduction of a
liability credit is “inapplicable” here because “[t]he Fund never abated or reduced” Quad’s
liability).)
The court nevertheless agrees with the arbitrator’s ultimate conclusion. There is here an
inherent conflict between the respective purposes of ERISA and bankruptcy law.
As the
arbitrator acknowledged, the regulatory guidance of 29 C.F.R. § 4206 does not address “the
intersection of a discharged claim for partial withdrawal liability and the proper application of the
credit to be given in the event of a subsequent partial or complete withdrawal.” (Id.)
Nor does
the legislative history suggest that Congress ever contemplated the situation presented in this
case. What is clear, however, is that the court must choose between frustrating either (1) the
purpose of ERISA/MPPAA as described in § 4206, or (2) the general principle that bankruptcy
“discharges the debtor from any debt that arose before the date” that its plan is confirmed, 11
U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1). The Fund argues that reducing Quad’s liability credit would not technically
conflict with the purpose of bankruptcy law: “The Alden partial [withdrawal liability] is discharged
and the Fund cannot collect on it. But, the subsequent withdrawals, the Memphis partial and
the complete withdrawal, are post-bankruptcy withdrawals . . . not subject to discharge. [T]he
credit is merely an amortized offset to future withdrawal liability based on prior assessed
withdrawal liability.” (Def.’s Opening Br. at 39.) This argument is unpersuasive. Allowing
creditors to sidestep the bankruptcy process by increasing debtors’ post-bankruptcy liabilities to
account for discharged debts would defeat the goal of bankruptcy. Tellingly, the Fund does not
cite to a single case or statute to support its position.
11
Given the conflict between ERISA (as amended by the MPPAA) and bankruptcy law, the
court’s choice is simple. Congress instructed that ERISA be construed such that it would not
“alter, amend, modify, invalidate, impair, or supersede any law of the United States.” 29 U.S.C.
§ 1144(d). Giving Plaintiff less than 100% credit for its Alden liability would do just that by
effectively reanimating discharged debt, thereby significantly impairing bankruptcy law. The
court enforces the arbitration award’s conclusion that “[t]he Fund erred by failing to give Quad
full credit for the Alden partial withdrawal liability.” The Fund must reassess Quad’s Memphis
partial withdrawal liability and the subsequent complete withdrawal liability by giving Quad 100%
credit for the Alden partial withdrawal liability.
CONCLUSION
The court upholds the arbitration award in its entirety. Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the
award in part [21] is granted, as is Defendant’s motion to enforce, in part, the arbitration award
[28]. Both parties’ motions are denied to the extent that they seek to vacate or modify, in part,
the arbitration award.
ENTER:
Dated: September 30, 2016
_________________________________________
REBECCA R. PALLMEYER
United States District Judge
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?