In the case of Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation et al., 1979, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that when a pension plan is terminated, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) must guarantee all nonforfeitable benefits under the plan up to a certain limit set by law. The dispute arose after Nachman Corp decided to terminate its pension plans and argued that it was not required to pay full benefits because some were not vested or guaranteed at termination time. However, PBGC claimed they were responsible for ensuring employees received their complete pensions regardless of vesting status at termination time as per Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court sided with PBGC stating ERISA's purpose was to ensure employees receive their promised benefits even if an employer terminates its pension plan.

In the dissenting opinion for Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation et al., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). He argued that Congress did not intend to make employers liable for unfunded pension benefits when they terminated a plan, but rather intended to limit their liability to premiums owed to the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation). According to him, if Congress had wanted employers' liability extended beyond these premiums, it would have explicitly stated so in ERISA. Furthermore, he contended that this ruling could discourage companies from establishing pension plans due to potential financial risks associated with termination of such plans. The decision also seemed unfair as it retroactively imposed liabilities on businesses which were not aware or warned about them at the time they established their pension schemes.