Featured Jobs
|
Compass
|
|
Managing Director - Operations, Benefits Daybright Financial
|
|
Combo Retirement Plan Administrator Strongpoint Partners
|
|
Cash Balance/ Defined Benefit Plan Administrator Steidle Pension Solutions, LLC
|
|
Relationship Manager for Defined Benefit/Cash Balance Plans Daybright Financial
|
|
Retirement Plan Consultants
|
|
Regional Vice President, Sales MAP Retirement USA LLC
|
|
Anchor 3(16) Fiduciary Solutions
|
|
DC Retirement Plan Administrator Michigan Pension & Actuarial Services, LLC
|
|
ESOP Administration Consultant Blue Ridge Associates
|
|
July Business Services
|
|
Retirement Plan Administration Consultant Blue Ridge Associates
|
|
Mergers & Acquisition Specialist Compass
|
|
Strongpoint Partners
|
Free Newsletters
“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”
-- An attorney subscriber
|
|
Search the News Archive
|
9 Matching News Items |
| 1. |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via FindLaw
Oct. 28, 2003
10 pages; McElroy v. SmithKline Beecham Health & Welfare Benefits Trust Plan for U.S. Employees, No. 02-3421 (3d Cir. Oct. 3, 2003). FindLaw.com"s summary: 'In a disability benefits case challenging an ERISA plan administrator's interpretation of the plan, the administrator's conclusion, that certain Railroad Retirement Board disability benefits should be deducted from plaintiff"s long-term disability payments, was reasonable.
|
| 2. |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via FindLaw
Mar. 27, 2003
Bauer v. Summit Bancorp, No. 01-3624 (3d Cir. Mar. 25, 2003). Excerpt: The Plan in this appeal is what has commonly been referred to over the last thirty years as a 'salaried-only plan.' Such a plan covers salaried employees of Summit and its subsidiaries, who are age 21 and above, and, who have completed one year of service. By its terms, Summit hourly employees are not eligible to participate in the Plan.
|
| 3. |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via FindLaw
Aug. 19, 2002
IRS v. CM Holdings, Inc., No. 00-3875 (3d Circuit Aug. 16, 2002). Excerpt: Appellant CM Holdings, Inc. ("CM Holdings'), the parent company of Camelot Music, Inc. ('Camelot'), challenges the District Court's holding that loading dividends used to fund insurance premiums for corporate-owned life insurance ('COLI") policies were shams in fact, and that the transactions as a whole lacked economic substance. We affirm[.]
|
| 4. |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via FindLaw
Feb. 25, 2002
Excerpt: Mack declined to rehire plaintiffs because to do so would create a future pension liability disproportionately greater than that incurred by hiring employees without past service or pension credit. Plaintiffs contend that Mack's decision amounts to unlawful 'discrimination' under section 510 of ERISA. [Becker v. Mack Grucks, Inc., No. 00-4414 (3rd Cir. Feb. 21, 2002)]
|
| 5. |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via FindLaw
Aug. 19, 2002
Mushalla v. Teamsters Local No. 863 Pension Fund, No. 01-2879 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2002). Excerpt: [T]he administrators of multiemployer plans have no greater duty of clairvoyance than any other ERISA fiduciary.... [W]e hold that [the] "serious consideration" test [of Fischer v. Philadelphia Electric Co.] applies with the same force to multiemployer plans as it does to single employer plans.
|
| 6. |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via FindLaw
July 14, 2003
42 pages; Burstein v. Retirement Account Plan for Employees of Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation, No. 02-2666 (3d Cir. Jul. 2, 2003). Excerpt: [W]e join several other Circuits in ruling that when a summary plan description under ERISA conflicts with the complete, detailed ERISA plan document, a plan participant may nevertheless state a claim for plan benefits based upon terms contained in the summary plan description.
|
| 7. |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via FindLaw
Aug. 5, 2002
13 pages; Smathers v. Multi-Tool, Inc., No. 01-1045 (3d Cir. Jul. 31, 2002). Excerpt: Here, there was no right that vested, nor is there any issue of retroactivity since the administrator"s discretionary authority was in place when that discretion was exercised. We also note that this reasoning is consistent with our view that the concept of 'vesting" under benefit plans is to be narrowly applied, and that there is a presumption against vesting with respect to most aspects of such plans.
|
| 8. |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via FindLaw
July 7, 2003
15 pages; Miller v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 02-2464 (3d Cir. Jun. 30, 2003). Excerpt: Miller contends that because he was a 'participant,' he necessarily is a 'participant' and, therefore, has standing to pursue his claim. The statutory language of ERISA does not support Miller's argument.
|
| 9. |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via FindLaw
Feb. 5, 2001
Scully v. US WATS, Inc. (3d Cir. February 01, 2001). Excerpt: In this appeal, the primary issue is whether US WATS improperly denied Mark Scully the right to exercise his stock option following his wrongful termination, and, if so, whether the District Court, in awarding damages, improperly failed to apply a discount from market value to account for the option shares' lack of marketability.
|
|
Syntax Enhancements for Standard Searches
|