Tinian to pay Retirement Fund $1.9M

The Fund and Tinian entered a stipulation for judgment in Superior Court in favor of the pension agency.

The  Fund earlier sued Tinian to collect the deficient contributions.

The deficiency reflected as of April 21, 2010 included employee contribution, $85,881; employer contribution, $1,371,040; and penalties, $458,902.29.

“The facts and allegations in the complaint are meritorious and defendant has no available defenses,” according to the stipulation filed in Superior Court.

The signatories were Retirement Fund Chairman Sixto K. Igisomar, its legal counsel Viola Alepuyo, Tinian Mayor Ramon M. Dela Cruz and Joey P. San Nicolas, the municipality’s counsel.

According to the stipulation, Tinian would remit $55,000 to the Fund at the signing of the stipulation on Sept. 24, 2010.

Variety could not confirm if payment was made on that date.

Beginning Dec. 1, 2010, according to the stipulation, Tinian will make a $15,000 monthly payment to the Fund “toward satisfying the judgment in addition to any amounts due for employee and employer contributions as they are due.”

The last payment, in the amount of $14,942.24, will be made on Jan. 1, 2021.

Tinian may, in the event of changed and/or worsening economic condition, petition the court to lower payments to the Fund.

In the event of improved economic condition, Tinian may increase payments to the Fund and provide the court notice of the increased payments.

Tinian employees who qualify to retire “shall be allowed to retire after the parties memorialize their agreement by signing the stipulation for judgment.”

The stipulation stated that the parties agreed that each will bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.

According to the complaint, Tinian relied on the language of Public Law 15-15 that allowed the CNMI government to suspend employer contribution from March 1, 2006 until the end of fiscal year 2007, and thus accumulated the $1,915,823.29 deficiency as of April 21, 2010.

However, the Superior Court later “held P.L. 15-15 as unconstitutional because it violates Article III…and contracts clause of the CNMI Constitution.”

Trending

Weekly Poll

Latest E-edition

Please login to access your e-Edition.

+