Funding early retirement benefits in a corporate merger acquisition after Hoechst-Celanese

Article Abstract:

The 3d and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeal came to different conclusions on the extent to which early retirement benefits must be funded after a corporate merger or acquisition. In Gillis v. Hoechst-Celanese, the 3d Circuit interpreted ERISA's anticutback rule to mean that the seller may continue to have an obligation to help fund the benefits even after the merger or acquisition. In Hunger v. AB, the 8th Circuit ruled that no such obligation occurs without an assumption of plan obligations or assets. The Supreme Court refused to review the 3d Circuit's ruling.

Cases, Laws, regulations and rules, Acquisitions and mergers, Retirement benefits

---

The tax that flattened pensions

Article Abstract:

The adoption of any flat tax scheme would devastate pension plans. Proposals such as Dick Armey's would do away with the tax qualification rules that regulate plans, leaving plan sponsors with little incentive to maintain good pension benefits. Richard Gephardt's plan would tax employer contributions immediately, wiping out the benefits to participants of tax deferral, and likely leading to the end of employer contributions.

Analysis, Taxation, Political aspects, Pension funds, Retirement planning, Flat tax

---

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Qualified plan distributions in corporate acquisitions and mergers. Rollovers for all: simplification or rip-off?
• Abstracts: Personnel management in Spain: waiting to join the mainstream. Personnel management in Italy: it's the climate that counts
• Abstracts: Completing the cycle of evaluation. When corporate need supersedes employee development. How culture-sensitive is HRM? A comparative analysis of practice in Chinese and UK companies
• Abstracts: Surplus pension assets: history and opportunity. Benefits and compensation planning: "DIS'ing" has special meaning as it applies to ERISA or one $600,000 mistake is one too many
• Abstracts: To preempt or not to preempt: will the Supreme Court do some serious bushhogging through the preemption thicket?

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.