Search

Public pensions can be poorly funded, and Kentucky's are among the worst funded in the nation. There are many reasons for this, but the overriding cause is the lack of funding discipline. Pension benefits are legally protected and highly valued, while pension funding is subject to competing social and budgetary goals and constraints. Kentucky has taken steps to shore up its pensions, including reforms of benefits and funding. But pension reform is intensely political, the job is not done, and it remains to be seen whether Kentucky pensions can withstand a prolonged recession. Reformers would therefore be well advised to follow developments in Kentucky. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses legal issues related to double taxation of teir 1 pensions in Germany. Topics include the prohibition of double tax under the Alterseinkünftegesetzes (AltEinkG) retirement income law; need of a legal reform to prevent appeals and lawsuits over the unconstitutionality of double taxation of pensions; the use of the nominal value principle to deal with double taxation; and the need of new legal framework for layer 1 the tax exemption of pension expenses and earnings.

Since 2010, the Department of Labor (DOL) has sought to strengthen the rules related to the use of financial products, services, and advice in qualified plans. After a contentious fight over proposed regulations, on April 6 the DOL issued its final conflict-of-interest rule. The new rule applies not only to traditional Employment Retirement Income Security Act plans but also to IRAs and IRA rollovers, and it significantly modifies how advisors and providers will interact with consumers. These changes, if they survive the promised challenges at the legislative and judicial levels, will affect retirement planning for years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We noted at the outset that corporate fixed benefit pension plans have traditionally had a "something for nothing" aspect about them. We saw subsequently that, whereas the pension put will sometimes be large enough to justify corporate sponsors treating these claims as "nothing," conventional analysis of pension plans encourages the beneficiary to treat these claims as "something." On the other hand, it also encourages sponsoring employers to treat pension claims as "nothing" even when the pension put against these claims is negligible. We have argued that private underwriters are unlikely to offer liability insurance. When, as provided by the Act, the Guaranty Corporation assumes this burden as insurer of last resort, it assumes a position analogous to that of the individual claimant prior to ERISA. The liability insurance provisions of the Act perpetuate the fruits of the "something for nothing" game for the sponsoring employer. Unfortunately, the resulting put on the Guaranty Corporation is huge compared to its capital. If the put is exercised then, of course, the United States government--which is to say, the U.S. taxpayer--can step in. The beneficiaries looking to a bandrupt Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to pay their pension claims will be very angry if it doesn't. On the other hand, many of the taxpayers called on to provide the necessary funds don't belong to a private pension plan. The financial burden they will be asked to assume is enormous, and it will benefit only that special group of people who do happen to belong to a private pension plan. The potential strain on the body politic is frightening to contemplate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides commentary on the conference paper "Multiperiod Pension Plans and ERISA," by T. C. Langetieg, M. C. Findlay, and L. F. J. da Motta, which appears in this issue. The author feels that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the attendant government corporation, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), have a level of complexity not addressed by the model created in the paper. She feels the paper only dealt with defined benefit plans and disregarded ERISA's tax implication, actuarial considerations, and the potential for lump sum distributions.

The next forty years of economic life will be dominated by one underlying theme: dealing with the retirement income security of a growing, aging and longerlived global population. This is a "can't run, can't hide" problem that will affect the lives of almost every human being on the planet . . . Whether you are light in your pension account, whether you have more money than Croesus, whether you live in the well-funded Netherlands, or whether you are a put-upon unambitious young male in Japan who sees no future for himself, you cannot escape this problem. Before you read very far you will realize that looming Baby-Boomer retirements are a ticking time bomb that threatens even those who have saved prudently for most of their lives. This is because many millions of others will enter retirement with virtually no private savings. The second group, which is far larger than the first, will face unmet needs that governments will find politically impossible to ignore. And to meet those needs, we will need lots of additional tax revenue, which can only come from those in a position to provide it. As Willie Sutton replied when asked why he robbed banks, "that's where the money is." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although it is often assumed that public workers have greater benefit protections than their private sector counterparts covered by the Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, this paper finds that state and local governments - particularly those with generous cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), fewer benefit protections, and financial pressures on the plan and the sponsoring government - cut COLAs for current workers and, often, for retirees. In most instances, these cuts were upheld by the courts. While the pace of COLA cuts has slowed, they are likely to reappear if plans come under renewed financial pressures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Futuribles is the property of Futuribles SARL and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the U.S. Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act's external review rules for cases involving the denial of healthcare claims filed under the nation's Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including information on a call for the implementation of legal reform measures to assist healthcare plan participants. The ERISA claims process is addressed, along with internal appeals and independent review organizations.

Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to ensure the protection of private employee benefits. In doing so, Congress created uniform national standards for the administration of private employee benefit plans. Section 510 of ERISA affords some protection to whistleblowers who report ERISA violations. There is uncertainty, however, about whether section 510 protects a whistleblower who complains directly to his or her employer, or whether protection is limited to an individual who makes a report externally. Some circuit courts have held that section 510 protects all ERISA whistleblowers, while others have held that section 510's protections are more limited. This Note considers the history of ERISA anal of whistleblower laws, addresses the circuit split over the reach of section 510's whistleblower protection provisions, and proposes an interpretation of section 510 that would provide broad protection to ERISA whistleblowers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the current state of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) law and its effects concerning good faith, breaches, and remedies available under the law in the U.S. It compares several theories and discusses on how to improve the ERISA's remedies. It has been argued that the most appropriate and efficient of breaches remedy is to require strict oversight by the state departments of insurance.

The article discusses the impact of "Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974" (ERISA) preemption provision on state laws and on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the U.S. It notes that ERISA hinders state laws which entail employer-provided health benefits as part of the new health care reform law. Moreover, it also preempts Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All the states were mandated to implement ACA despite of the contingent preemptive effect of ESIRA.

The article discusses the legal implications for employers who are considering several labor cost-saving options in the U.S. Some of cost-saving measures for employers include furloughs, reduced wages, reduced workweeks, and job sharing. These cost-saving options face legal challenges with regards to several statutes including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

The article discusses whether the New York City Council has the authority to pass the Paid Sick Time Act introduced by Council member Gale Brewer and whether state and federal laws governing employee benefits would preempt this proposal. It explores the gap left by federal and state law addressing employment leave. It argues that the Paid Sick Time Act does not conflict with the New York Minimum Wage Act. It is concluded that both the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) do not preempt the Paid Sick Time Act.

The article discusses the potential impact of judicial interpretation concerning the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) on the position of benefit plan participants in the U.S. It states that judicial decisions of restricting the rights of employee benefit plan participants could have affected the latter's overall stance if the said law had not been ratified. It explores the history of ERISA and the assurance it has provided for plan participants.

In this article the author discusses the issue involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 in the U.S. The author mentions the U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which it held that the benefits of an employee-benefit plan governed by ERISA are to be distributed in strict compliance with the plan's documents. The author notes that Texas court has an opportunity to show state-law remedies for parties seeking to recover proceeds paid to an unintended beneficiary.

The author comments on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and how it applies to Indian tribal employers. The author discusses the history of general federal laws and how they apply to sovereign Indian tribes, the use, relationship and implications of ERISA in Indian tribes, court rulings, the Pension Plan Act amendment and the impact of ERISA on how Indian sovereignty evolved. Conclusions indicated that in recognizing the right of Indian tribes to govern themselves, they should be completely ERISA exempt.

One of the main arguments for pension system reform in Mexico was its impact on savings. Our work presents a first quantification of this impact, by estimating the contractual savings generated by this program and its relationship with voluntary savings. Our results suggest that there is no compensation effect between voluntary and contractual savings. Also, the latter, together with changes in public savings after ten years of reform, have, on average, a positive (although small) effect on national saving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the management of a Qualified Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (QSERP) under the nondiscrimination regulations in the U.S. It highlights the violations in the fundamental principles of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for practicing QSERP by employers. It proposes two solutions to the problems of QSERP which include the change in the policy by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the amendment of the 409A in ERISA by the U.S. Congress.

The article discusses a court case wherein a former employee of Duke Energy Corp. sued Aetna Life Insurance Co. over the interpretation of Duke's long term disability plan under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Duke acted as the employer but Aetna was both the insurer and the plan's claims administrator. The employee filed two claims for unrelated illnesses. Aetna reduced the employee's claim benefits when it discovered the second claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit upheld Aetna's action.

The article discusses the judicial developments related to employee benefits and the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974 (ERISA) in the U.S. It mentions several court cases including "McCauley v. First Unum Life Insurance Co.," "Chronister v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America" and "Pollitt v. Health Care Services Corp." It states that the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) amended the Title I of EISA on August 17, 2006. It highlights the guidance on the duties of employee benefit plan fiduciaries issued by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) of the Department of Labor on February 5, 2009.

The article discusses the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in the U.S. It notes that ERISA plays an important role in the context of litigation over health care benefits. It states that is said legislation is intended to provide a comprehensive regulatory scheme to protect employees pension plans. However, it concluded that ERISA litigation is not an ideal means of regulating the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) industry.

The article discusses the vesting of survivor benefits in divorce which was an issue of first impression for the Ninth Circuit in the case Carmona v. Carmona. It says the Ninth Circuit established a broad vesting rule which will apply in most divorce actions involving the assignment of survivor benefits from an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)-based plan. The article says however the vesting rule can be minimized if counsel recognizes the importance of timing and plan notice.

The article provides a historical account of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 whereby the author, an ERISA expert, relates his life experience of teaching ERISA at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in the U.S. According to him, ERISA and its 35-year legislative and administrative evolution reflect the ideology of ERISA, a paternalistic ideology of good intentions. He states that the protective of ERISA underpins legislative and administrative decision that has not been true in the courts. The author also discusses the disclosure of 401(k) investment fees.

The article discusses the misinterpretations and nondisclosure claims under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 wherein many employees whose company-sponsored retirement saving plans were heavily invested in the stock of their employers have seen their account balances depleted. It presents an overview of ERISA fiduciary duties which were supposed to assure the equitable character and financial soundness of retirement and other benefit plans. Procedurally, ERISA may allow plaintiffs to proceed with the nondisclosure claims and avoid early dismissal of their case and obtain a favorable settlement.

The article discusses available remedies in litigation against a welfare plan and its fiduciaries when a litigant has been injured by the wrongful handling of benefits claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 in the U.S. It mentions that the law allows civil litigation to redress violations as stated in section 502 (a). It talks about potential distortions to substantial expansion of liability, which include a concern that providing excessive remedies will incent beneficiaries and participants to charge illegitimate or questionable claims, and that providing excessive remedies will incent plans to settle these claims.

The article discusses issues relating to preemption under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 wherein courts were said to be struggling with the nature of the available remedies and filling in some statute's gaps by promulgating federal common law. It argues that the broad interpretation of the courts with regards to ERISA preemption of state laws coupled with their narrow construction of the relief available under ERISA has resulted to a regulatory vacuum. It suggests that there must be a common sense in order to put security back in ERISA.

The article offers insights on the two preemption provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law's civil enforcement provisions in lawsuits brought by plan participants and beneficiaries in the U.S. It states that ERISA's preemption provisions were established to protect both employers who shoulder the cost and the participants who benefit from them. It also cites several court cases to reflect on the current state of the ERISA remedial law including the Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, Kennedy v. DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, and Mertens v. Hewitt Associates cases.

Australia's retirement income system has two distinctive features: a means-tested public pension, and a policy mandating private retirement saving. These programs have gained increasing international attention as countries address the challenges posed by population aging. In this paper the institutional features of the retirement income system in Australia are outlined and contrasted to the Canadian retirement income system, with an emphasis on private incentives to save. The savings behaviour of current Australian retirees is examined, and the expectations of future retirees considered. Lessons from the Australian experience are drawn, which may inform Canada and other countries as they reform their retirement income system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case concerning the preemption of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA) in the Health Care Security Ordinance in San Francisco, California. It cites on the case between Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco. It indicates that the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals decided to put limitations on the preemption of ERISA and expands pay-or-play statutes.

The article presents an analysis of the role of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security act of 1974 (ERISA) preemption clause on the category of health care legislation known as "pay of play" or "fair share" contribution in Massachusetts. The author explains that ERISA affect states when they decide to deal with the health care problems associated with uninsured and government costs. Court cases related to ERISA preemption are also provided.

The article looks into the potential legal challenge of Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, a law that provides access to affordable, quality and accountable health care approved by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, under the preemption clause of the federal 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). ERISA intends to limit the burden on employee benefit plans. On the other hand, Chapter 58 relies on employer contributions as a source of revenue for the increased insurance coverage.

The article provides an analysis on the effect of life expectancy (LE) on pension system. It projects LE 50 years into the future. It notes that the estimations support an examination of how pension entitlements vary under the different scenarios for LE and then on how the risk for LE is shared by both individual retirees and pension providers. It concludes that the study offers a lesson to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries if they want to adopt LE policies in their pension systems.

The article investigates the impact of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on employee welfare benefit plans and health plans in the U.S. In particular, sections 502(a) and 514 of ERISA, which govern remedies and federal preemption, are considered. The author contends that these provisions, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, affect the injured plaintiff's ability to obtain proper retribution. A discussion on the impact of ERISA on health care is considered.

The article discusses how the damages claimed by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in the context of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) may fare before the U.S. Supreme Court. It provides an overview of ERISA and its application in HMO liability. It describes the significant case history, in which Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice John Paul Stevens clashed on the issue of what sort of remedies ERISA provides.

The article discusses the Second Circuit decision ruling in Hattem v. Schwarzenegger that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) did not preempt the California law taxing unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) of tax exempt trusts. The author evaluates the case's approach to the connection prong of ERISA preemption and attempts to identify flaws in its analysis by providing an overview of ERISA's preemption clause, the case and the court's opinion.

Purpose -- To describe how the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the "Pension Act") will affect the investment of plan assets subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Design/methodology/approach -- Describes the redefinition of "plan assets" under the Pension Act and explains new statutory prohibited transaction exemptions in areas that include transactions between plans and service providers, cross-trading, foreign exchange transactions, block trades, the use of electronic communications networks (ECNs), correction to reverse prohibited transactions, bonding, and investment advice. Findings -- The status of existing investors as benefit plan investors under the Pension Act should be reviewed to determine whether formerly precluded investors may now be permitted. ERISA-related purchase, sale, and transfer restrictions currently in use will need to be reviewed and likely significantly revised to reflect the decreased breadth of "party in interest" prohibitions. Investment advisers will need to review whether they want to begin providing investment advisory services to plan participants and, if so, begin developing procedural safeguards to comply with the requirements of the Pension Act. Originality/value -- A useful summary of forthcoming pension legislation as it affects US pension and IRA investments, particularly in its redefinition of the circumstances under which an entity's assets are treated as "plan assets" for ERISA purposes and its new statutory exemptions from the prohibited transaction requirements of ERISA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose -- To discuss possible disadvantages and other implications for private investment fund managers of issuing side letters to certain investors. Design/methodology/approach -- Discusses the relatively common practice of issuing side letters; issues surrounding side letters that relate to private equity funds and hedge funds; recent SEC pronouncements regarding side letters; industry practices, including disclosure issues and corporate-related issues; and ERISA consequences. Findings -- Side letters (i.e. agreements that afford investors of a private investment fund with rights and/or benefits that are different, and often superior, to those granted to such investors under the governing documents of the fund) have been utilized for years by sponsors of private investment funds. In fact, in many cases, it has been impossible for sponsors of private investment funds to close on subscriptions from large and/or strategic investors unless they agree to provide such investors with side letters. In light of the recent focus of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on the use of side letters by hedge fund managers, fund managers should consider what affect certain side letter provisions may have on the fund and its investors, in particular, the consequences such side letters will have under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Originality/value -- Useful reference for fund managers that describes the potential issues related to side letters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluates the interpretation of the case law doctrine based on preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila. Analysis of the text on preemption under ERISA; Effects of managed care on ERISA; Types of preemption that courts may consider when handling an ERISA health care case.

Reports on the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit that states lack standing under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to assert claims of ERISA violations on behalf of its citizens unless the state can show that it suffered actual or imminent injury. Lawsuit filed by the state of Connecticut against several managed care companies after the state received assignments of ERISA rights from four of its citizens who ha d been enrolled in Defendants' ERISA plans; Allegations of ERISA violations by the defendants by obstructing enrollees' access to prescription drugs, failing to make timely payments to providers, failing to disclose health insurance plan information to enrollees, failing to respond to enrollee letters and phone calls and denying enrollees' coverage based on arbitrary guidelines.

Explores the applicability of the presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state regulation in the U.S. Problem with Congress' intervention in the Egelhoff versus Egelhoff case about the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; Reason for applying the presumption against preemption to agency action; Speculation on the vanishing application of the presumption against preemption.

Analyzes the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rush Prudential HMO Inc. v. Moran in relation to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. Examination into the jurisprudence regarding ERISA preemption; Discussion of the opinion reached by the Fifth Circuit in Corporate Health Insurance Inc. v. Texas Department of Health; Analysis of the Seventh Circuit's decision in Moran v. Rush Prudential HMO Inc.

Focuses on the 'per se rule,' the courts' refusal to look at an entity's organizational form in determining worker eligibility to sue under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act. Proposal to allow employers to set their own liability under federal employment discrimination laws; Exemption of employees from such protections; Economic realities test.

Focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Rush Prudential HMO Inc. v. Moran which was filed under the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act in 2001. Background on the case; Decision of the court; Discussion and analysis.

Discusses requirements for employee benefit compliance in the U.S. Importance of the establishment and maintenance of a written document plan in benefit compliance; Details on benefit plans which are not covered by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1975; Information on legislation which affect qualified retirement plans.

Argues that early retirement benefits contingent on a plant shutdowm should be protected by the anticutback rule. Background of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in the United States and the Retirement Equity Act's amendments to the anticutback provision; Analysis of the anticutback provision's language and legislative history; Application of the provision to contingent retirement benefits.