Failure to notify plan participants of certain plan amendments did not violate ERISA s. 204(h)
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in Anderson v. Resolution Trust Corp. that notice was not required when a defined benefit plan was amended because the amendments were occurring pursuant to IRS Notice 88-131. Notice 88-131 allowed plans to suspend accruals for 1989 and 1990 without notice. The former employees brought suit against the RTC, acting as conservator of the failed employer, for violation of ERISA section 204(h). The court dismissed those claims because of Notice 88-131, but it remanded on the issue of fiduciary obligations in communicating with the employees.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Supreme Court holds that nonfiduciaries cannot be liable under ERISA for monetary damages; Metzenbaum introduces bill to overturn
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court ruled in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates that a non-fiduciary cannot be held liable under ERISA for knowingly participating in a breach of fiduciary duty. This decision helps assuage the fears of actuaries and lawyers who may serve non-fiduciary, consultant roles to certain benefit plans. However, Ohio Democratic Rep Howard Metzenbaum has moved to reverse the decision through legislation. Metzenbaum's amendment seeks to broaden the liability and increase the penalties of non-fiduciaries who knowingly violate ERISA's rules of transaction and duty.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Third Circuit holds that ERISA preempts state law application to non-fiduciary
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Citibank that the defendant was not assigned the type of duties that trigger ERISA fiduciary laws and that state claims nonetheless were preempted by ERISA. The preemption finding appears to depart from the standard set by the US Supreme Court in New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Travelers. Other courts have reached conclusions consistent with Travelers.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Do parties to nuisance cases bargain after judgment? A glimpse inside the cathedral. Allocating the burden of proof in 60(b)(4) motions to vacate a default judgment for lack of jurisdiction
- Abstracts: A guide to practical knowledge of the FMLA and its complex new final regulations
- Abstracts: Bankruptcy valuation of a claim secured by a mortgage on realty and an assignment of rents. Liability of a secured party in possession when pledged stock or similar securities decline in value
- Abstracts: An overview of federal medical savings accounts. Supreme Court unanimously decides employer may amend overfunded, contributory defined benefit plan despite employees' class action arguing the amendment was improper
- Abstracts: President's IRA proposal introduced. House Republicans' Contract with America legislation contains IRA provision; Roth-Breaux IRA Plus legislation introduced