1 MEMORANDUM Select Group Requirement for ERISA Top Hat Plans November 27, 2007 We discuss below how the courts and Department of Labor ("DOL") have interpreted the ERISA requirement that participation in a "top hat" plan be limited to a "select group of management or highly compensated employees" (the "Select Group"). I. Legal Requirements Although a non-qualified deferred compensation plan typically is a pension plan subject to ERISA requirements, a "top hat" pension plan is exempt from the participation, funding, vesting and fiduciary responsibility rules of ERISA. 1 In order to qualify as a top hat plan, a plan must be unfunded and "maintained by an employer primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees." 2 The DOL has never issued regulations interpreting the meaning of this Select Group requirement. The DOL did address the issue in several Advisory Opinions, but not since Further, there is very little guidance in the legislative history of ERISA on this Select Group requirement. Most of the useful, and all of the recent, guidance on this issue has come from the federal and bankruptcy court cases discussed below. These cases typically arise when participants in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan do not receive the benefits they expected from the plan. The participants sue the employer and/or the plan's administrator claiming that the plan is not a top hat plan because participation was not limited to a Select Group. 3 Thus, the participants claim the plan was required to comply with all the requirements of ERISA for pension plans, including the participant-favorable rules regarding, for example, eligibility, vesting, fiduciary 1 ERISA 201(2), 301(a)(3) and 401(a)(1). We say "typically" because some courts have ruled that very simple plans, especially those covering only one or two persons, are not ERISA "plans" at all. See, e.g., Sheer v. Israel Disc. Bank of N.Y., No. 06 Civ. 4995(PAC), 2007 WL (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2007). 2 3 Id. In one case, a non-participant vice-president/general manager was denied benefits provided under a severance agreement offered to other managers. The employee, although a non-participant, sued the employer alleging the severance agreements constituted an employee benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA. The court assessed the employer's liability in accordance with the top hat standards of ERISA 401(a)(1) and excluded the employee from participation in the severance plan. Pane v. RCA Corp., 868 F.2d 631 (3rd Cir. 1989). GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C Fax:
2 -2- responsibility and/or funding. The courts have taken varied and sometimes conflicting approaches to the issue in these cases. However, most have focused on specific objective measures, such as the percentage of the workforce covered by the plan and the average salary of the covered employees compared to the average for the workforce, in trying to determine whether a plan covers a Select Group. In its earlier efforts to address the issue in Advisory Opinions, the DOL looked at similar objective factors in performing the Select Group analysis. However, in a 1990 Opinion, the DOL indicated a shift in its thinking on this issue. As discussed below, several courts have incorporated the DOL's thoughts into their Select Group analysis. One thing that is clear from the case law and the DOL Advisory Opinions is that the Select Group determination is based on a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, and no single factor is determinative or consistently applied from one jurisdiction to another. We have addressed below the key factors the courts and the DOL have considered in their analyses. A. Plan Documents The starting point for the Select Group analysis is a plan's language regarding purpose and eligibility. Typically, a top hat plan limits eligibility to participate in the plan to a select group of management or highly compensated employees designated by a committee of the board. In one case, the district court looked first to the plan documents to determine if the plan was primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a Select Group of employees. 4 The court, after determining the company intended the plan to be a top hat plan based on its language, stated "the mere fact that [the company] intended the plan to be a 'top hat' plan does not necessarily satisfy the requirement that it is a 'top hat' plan" and continued its analysis based on the relative number, pay levels and positions of employees covered under the plan. 5 Similarly, in In re New Valley Corp, 6 the Third Circuit, in assessing whether a plan was a top hat plan, required that the plan document exhibit an intention that the plan constitute a top hat plan and also assessed other factors courts have generally focused on, including: (i) the percentage of employees who participate in the plan, (ii) the average salaries of the participants in comparison to the entire employee base, and (iii) the titles and responsibilities of the participants. These requirements are discussed in detail below. B. Percentage of Workforce Covered One factor that has frequently been addressed by the courts and the DOL in performing the Select Group analysis is the percentage of a company's workforce covered by the plan. 4 Bakri v. Venture Mfg. Co., No. 3-:03-CV-405, 2005 WL (S.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2005), rev'd on other grounds 473 F.3d 677 (6th Cir. 2007). 5 6 Id. at 4-5. In re New Valley Corp., 89 F.3d 143, 148 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S (1997).
3 -3- Generally, the smaller the percentage, the more likely it is that the participants are members of a Select Group. However, the relevant authorities do not establish a bright-line rule as to what percentage is sufficiently small. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in Demery v. Extebank Deferred Compensation Plan (B), 7 that a plan available to 15.34% of an employer's workforce covered a Select Group. However, the Second Circuit did note that this level of coverage was probably "at or near the upper limit of the acceptable size for a 'select group.'" 8 One court has held that a plan covering 18.7% of the work-force did not cover a Select Group. 9 The courts and the DOL have generally upheld the top hat status of plans with coverage percentages in the 4-5% range. 10 However, courts and the DOL have ruled that plans with percentages in this range are not top hat plans when other unfavorable factors were present. 11 One recent development involves the question of who to count when determining the percentage of workforce covered. Generally, courts have focused on the number of employees eligible or invited to contribute to a plan when determining whether they were a Select Group. 12 However, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts made a distinction in Alexander v. Brigham and Women's Physicians Org., Inc. 13 between optional participation and required participation. In this case, the defendant maintained two deferred compensation plans, the Faculty Retirement Benefit Plan and the Unfunded Deferred Compensation Plan, for its surgeons who were also members of the medical school's faculty. 14 The surgeons with private practices that earned more than the medical school's salary cap were required to defer the excess salary into these two plans. 15 The plaintiff, a highly paid surgeon, filed suit after termination and the reduction of his accounts by the amount of his practice deficit, as provided in the plans F.3d 283 (2d Cir. 2000). Id. at 289. Darden v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 717 F. Supp. 388, 397 (E.D.N.C. 1989), aff'd on other grounds, 922 F.2d 203 (4th Cir. 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). 10 See, e.g., Duggan v. Hobbs, 99 F.3d 307 (9th Cir. 1996) (5% coverage); Belka v. Rowe Furniture Corp., 571 F. Supp (D. Md. 1983) (4.6% coverage); DOL Adv. Op (Aug. 1, 1975) (4% coverage). 11 See Carrabba v. Randalls Food Markets, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 2d 468 (N.D. Tex. 1999) (coverage less than 5%); DOL Adv. Op A (Oct. 25, 1985) (coverage less than 7%). 12 See, e.g., Demery, 216 F.3d at 285; Carrabba, 38 F. Supp. 2d at ; Guiragoss v. Khoury, 444 F. Supp. 2d 649, (E.D. Va. 2006) F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Mass. 2006). See id. at 139. See id. at See Alexander, 467 F. Supp. 2d at 140.
4 -4- The court in Alexander made a distinction and reasoned that if participation is optional, the percentage of employees covered includes all employees invited to participate. 17 However, if participation is required and available only to the highest earning employees, the court deemed it appropriate to consider only the actual participants in the plan in determining such percentage. 18 Thus, even though approximately 30% of the employees were eligible to participate in the plans, only the most profitable surgeons were required to defer salary into the plans, which resulted in required participation percentages of 8.7% and 5.8%, respectively. 19 The court held that the two plans were maintained for the purpose of providing deferred compensation to a select group of highly compensated employees and qualified as top hat plans. 20 Two issues the courts and the DOL have not yet explicitly addressed are: (1) whether the percentage of employees covered is based on the employee population of a plan sponsor or, where applicable, the plan sponsor's entire controlled group; 21 and (2) whether the percentage of employees covered should include former employees in "pay status." First, although not explicitly addressed, the facts in Demery imply that a court may look to the employees of the plan sponsor (i.e., determine percentage at the subsidiary level) rather than all employees of the entire controlled group. 22 Second, most courts only mention current employees when determining the percentage of coverage. However, in one case, the court took into account former employees who still had an account in the plan. 23 Generally, the statutory language requires coverage of a "select group of management or highly compensated employees." 24 By definition, a former employee is not management or a highly compensated employee. Thus, even though a former employee may still be a participant in the plan, 25 it seems unlikely that a court considering the issue would take into account former employees See id. at See id. See id. See Alexander, 467 F. Supp. 2d at 148. We note that certain ERISA participation requirements expressly apply on a controlled group basis (See ERISA 210(c)). 22 In Demery, the court referred to a corporate parent, while the percentage analysis focused only on the workforce of Extebank, the subsidiary and plan sponsor. Participants in the plan in this case were all employees of one subsidiary, the plan sponsor. 23 The court in Belka included both present and former employees in calculating the percentage of employees covered ERISA 201(2), 301(a)(3) and 401(a)(1). The definition of "participant" under ERISA is "any employee or former employee who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any kind from an employee benefit plan." ERISA 3(7).
5 -5- C. Average Salary Comparison Many courts and the DOL have also taken into account how the average salary of plan participants compares to the average salary of all employees. The larger the difference is between plan participants' average salary and the average salary of employees generally, the greater the likelihood of a finding of a Select Group. One district court upheld a plan's status as a top hat plan where the average salary of plan participants was approximately 3½ times that of the average of all employees. 26 Similarly, the Second Circuit in Demery upheld a plan's status as a top hat plan where the average salary of participants was "more than double" the average salary of employees generally. 27 D. "Management or Highly Compensated" As discussed above, a Select Group must be made up of management or highly compensated employees. Indeed, one district court even required evidence that the participants in a plan were "a select group" of a larger group of management or highly compensated employees. 28 The courts and the DOL have looked carefully at the job titles of individuals eligible to participate in a plan to determine if they are "management." 29 The courts and the DOL have also looked at the individual salaries of covered employees (apart from comparing average salaries) to determine whether they are "highly compensated." 30 Both the DOL and IRS have stated that the definition of "highly compensated employee" found in Code 414(q) (generally employees with taxable income of $100,000 or more for 2007) ("HCE") is not a "safe harbor" definition for this purpose. 31 Thus, in most cases, use of the Code 414(q) definition to determine plan eligibility may be considered aggressive. Nevertheless, a Delaware bankruptcy court ruled that a plan covering participants having pay levels at $100,000 met the Select Group requirement. 32 The court reviewed both titles and pay levels of participants with respect to the qualitative requirement that plan participants must be "high level" employees, either "management" or "highly compensated." 33 The court concluded See Belka, 571 F. Supp. at Demery, 216 F.3d at 289. See Carrabba, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 478. See, e.g., Carrabba, 38 F. Supp. 2d at ; Demery, 216 F.3d at 289; DOL Adv. Op A (Oct. 25, 1985) See, e.g., Carrabba, 38 F. Supp. 2d at ; DOL Adv. Op A (Oct. 25, 1985). See preamble to Code 414(q) regulations, 53 Fed. Reg. 4965, 4967 (Feb. 18, 1988) ("The Departments of Treasury and Labor concur in the view that a broad extension of 414(q) to determinations under [the top hat exemption] would be inconsistent with the tax and retirement policy objectives of encouraging employers to maintain tax-qualified plans that provide meaningful benefits to rank and file employees.") See In re IT Group, Inc., 305 B.R. 402 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004). Id. at 410.
6 -6- that the $100,000 floor on participants' salaries was itself sufficient to satisfy the "highly compensated" criteria to qualify as a top hat plan. 34 Whether all courts would rule the same way is unclear. However, this case provides a recent example of flexible criteria a court may use in the Select Group analysis. Thus, although no bright-line guidance has emerged from the analyses of the DOL and the courts on these issues, reasonable efforts should be made to determine whether the covered employees may fairly be considered to be management and/or highly compensated. E. "Bargaining Power" of Participants As noted above, the DOL shifted its focus regarding the Select Group analysis in According to the DOL, Congress adopted the top hat plan exemption because it recognized that: certain individuals, by reason of their position or compensation level, have the ability to affect or substantially influence, through negotiation or otherwise, the design and operation of their deferred compensation plan, taking into consideration any risks attendant thereto, and, therefore, would not need the substantive rights and protections of Title I [of ERISA]. 35 The DOL, however, cited nothing in the legislative history to support its view. The DOL also did not expressly state that the ability to negotiate the terms of a plan would need to be considered as the factor (or even as one of many factors) in actually performing the Select Group analysis. Finally, the DOL did not disavow its previous Advisory Opinions on the issue which had focused on the more objective factors described above. Several courts have agreed with the DOL's view of Congressional intent. 36 Some courts have also indicated that the ability to negotiate the terms of a plan should be one of the factors considered in the Select Group analysis, although they did not seem to place much emphasis on this factor. 37 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, placed significant emphasis on this factor in its lone "Select Group" decision, Duggan v. Hobbs. 38 In addition, the Sixth Circuit recently reversed and remanded a liberal interpretation of the Select Group requirement that had been applied by the district court in granting summary See id. DOL Adv. Op A (May 8, 1990); see also DOL Adv. Op A, n.1 (May 19, 1992) (repeating same position). 36 See, e.g., Demery, 216 F.3d at 289; Spacek v. Maritime Assoc.-I.L.A. Pension Plan, 134 F.3d 283, 296 n.12 (5th Cir. 1998) (abrogated on other grounds). 37 See, e.g., Demery, 216 F.3d at 289 (insufficient evidence to analyze); Carrabba, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 478 (stating that the DOL's view on this issue is "perhaps" correct) F.3d 307 (9th Cir. 1996); see also In re Battram, 214 B.R. 621 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1997) (stating that under Duggan, the two relevant factors are percentage of workforce covered and ability to negotiate).
7 -7- judgment to the defendant. 39 In Bakri, the Sixth Circuit referred to the DOL's position that top hat plans should be for high-ranking management personnel who have the ability to protect their benefit interests, through negotiations or otherwise. Focusing on this requirement, the Sixth Circuit found that eligible managers and individuals holding secretarial and administrative positions did not have any "supervisory, policy making, or executive responsibility, and had little ability to negotiate pension, pay or bonus compensation." 40 Thus, the court concluded that the deferred compensation plan was not a top hat plan. 41 As stated above, the DOL did not (and could not) cite any legislative history supporting its view on Congressional intent on this point. The statute itself simply requires that the plan cover a select group of management or highly compensated employees. Thus, covered employees need only be management or highly paid, not both. At the enactment of ERISA (and continuing today), there are highly paid employees (e.g., salespersons or employees in other "fungible" positions) who do not have the ability to bargain over the terms of their nonqualified benefit plans. Presumably, if Congress intended to do so, it could have made clear that a top hat plan could not cover of these types of employees. 42 In many circumstances, it would also be difficult to apply this "ability to negotiate" test to particular facts. For example, as the Ninth Circuit found in Duggans, it would be easy to apply this test if a deferred compensation plan was negotiated by an attorney on behalf of an executive as part of his severance package. 43 The task, however, would be much more difficult with a typical deferred compensation plan covering a number of employees. 44 There, evidence that the covered employees had negotiated employment or change in control agreements, or otherwise had individualized pay and/or benefits packages (e.g., option grants, incentive arrangements, loans), should help to demonstrate the requisite ability to negotiate over the terms of the plan. However, the fact that covered employees did not negotiate their individual pay and/or benefits packages or the terms of the plan should not foreclose a determination that the plan satisfies the Select Group requirement. F. The "Primarily" Requirement The statutory exemptions state that a top hat plan must be maintained "primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group." Thus, a plan sponsor can argue that as long as a plan covers primarily members of a Select Group, it should be able to See Bakri, 473 F.3d at 680. Id. See id. See Alexander, 467 F. Supp. 2d at (in dicta, court refused to impose "bargaining power" requirement, based on statutory language and absence of legislative history to the contrary). 43 See Duggan, 99 F.3d at 310; see also In re Battram, 214 B.R (the agreement's individualized disability benefits reflect the employee's ability to negotiate). 44 See Carrabba, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 478 (noting the difficulty applying this test).
8 -8- cover a few other employees without jeopardizing its top hat status. The DOL, however, has stated that it believes "primarily" refers to the purpose of the plan (e.g., the provision of deferred compensation) and not the composition of the group of plan participants. 45 Recently, the court in Alexander interpreted the "primarily" requirement with respect to the purpose of the plan and reasoned that a top hat plan can have multiple secondary purposes such as a company's desire to recruit and retain excellent employees or replace lost benefits from a previous employer. 46 By applying the term "primarily" to the purpose of the plan rather than the employees covered, the DOL position seems to be that all covered employees must be members of a Select Group in order for a plan to qualify as a top hat plan. The Second Circuit rejected this reasoning in Demery, stating that a plan would not be disqualified from top hat status simply because a "very small number" of plan participants were not members of the Select Group. 47 G. Burden of Proof If a participant challenges a plan's top hat status, several courts have held that the employer has the burden of proving that the plan qualifies as a top hat plan. 48 One court stated that ERISA is a remedial statute to be liberally construed in favor of participants, so that exemptions should be confined to their narrow purpose. 49 II. Consequences of Failing the Select Group Requirement In the event a plan was found not to satisfy the Select Group requirement, and thus was subject to all of the requirements of ERISA for pension plans, the consequences to the employer and the participants in the plan include: (1) The company would be required to fully fund amounts credited to notional accounts in the plan; (2) Amounts transferred to a participant's plan account would immediately be included in the participant's income and would be subject to income tax withholding and employment taxes; (3) In future years, all highly compensated employees would be taxed on any allocable trust income; DOL Adv. Op A, n.1. See Alexander, 467 F. Supp. 2d at , citing Prior v. Innovative Communications Corp., 360 F. Supp. 2d 704, 708 (D.Vi. 2005); Garratt v. Knowles, 245 F.3d 941, 946 n.4 (7th Cir. 2001); In re Battram, 214 B.R. at Demery, 216 F.3d at 289; see also Belka, 571 F. Supp. at 1253 (stating that "almost all of [the company's] employees covered by the agreements would fit within the 'select group'"); Carraba, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 478 (stating that a plan must be "primarily... for a select group"). 48 See, e.g., Carrabba, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 470; In re The IT Grp., Inc., 305 B.R. at 407; Alexander, 467 F. Supp. 2d at See Carrabba, 38 F. Supp. 2d at 470.
9 -9- (4) The company would be required to file all prior and future Annual Form 5500s, subject to applicable penalties; and (5) The company would be required to provide summary plan descriptions and summary annual reports to participants. Most importantly, if a plan was determined not to satisfy the Select Group requirement, the plan could likely not distribute the funded amounts even though such amounts would be immediately taxable to the participants. Essentially, this outcome subjects the participants to a current year tax burden without the corresponding liquidity created by immediate payment of the amount includible in income (i.e., a cash flow shortfall). 50 Unfortunately, this conundrum is created as a result of Code section 409A and its final regulations (the "409A Regulations"). The 409A Regulations will not permit any distribution from a plan as a result of failing to satisfy the Select Group requirement or because amounts are includible in income for a reason other than a violation of Code section 409A. Consequently, drafting or amending a plan to provide for such a distribution would be an impermissible acceleration of payment under Code section 409A. This accelerated payment would violate Code section 409A and cause an additional 20% tax on the total amount includible in income, plus interest from the year of deferral. As a practical matter, the participants would have two alternatives: (1) satisfy the tax burden caused by funding the plan, with currently available funds (i.e., funds outside the plan); or (2) if permitted by the company, receive an accelerated distribution in violation of Code section 409A and pay the additional income tax and interest. Either alternative above would likely cause severe financial consequences for the company and each participant. 50 However, "grandfathered amounts" under the plan (i.e., amounts that were earned and vested before 2005 and exempt from Code section 409A), may be distributed if the plan permits. O:\JMCGUINESS\MODELS\TOP HAT MEMO (2007).DOC
Case 4:11-cv-00107 Document 174 Filed in TXSD on 04/28/15 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BRENDA TOLBERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil
Case 8:10-cv-01256-RWT Document 167 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DENNIS WALTER BOND, SR., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. RWT-10-1256
Case 3:05-cv-01771-G Document 35 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID 288 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOEL N. COHEN, VS. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, NCO FINANCIAL
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN In re Case No. 13-23483 JANICE RENEE PUGH, Chapter 13 Debtor. MEMORANDUM DECISION ON DEBTOR S OBJECTION TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE S MOTION
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: ) Chapter 11 ) L.I.S. CUSTOM DESIGNS, INC. ) Case No. 15-70662 (LAS) ) ) Debtor. ) RESPONSE OF THE PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE HERRICK GROUP & ASSOCIATES LLC : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 07-0628 : K.J.T., L.P., : Defendant : MEMORANDUM
Case: 09-60402 Document: 00511062860 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
Self-Directed IRA Myths By Richard K. Matta Copyright 2009 Introduction A search of the internet quickly reveals that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of websites promoting one of the hottest financial
Case 1:12-cv-06677-JSR Document 77 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x EDWARD ZYBURO, on behalf of himself and all
Entered on Docket January, 1 In re: DAVID ALLEN PERMAN and MARY DEE PERMAN, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Debtors. Case No. -1-BDL NOTICE OF MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pension & Benefits Daily Reproduced with permission from Pension & Benefits Daily, PBD, 07/23/2014. Copyright 2014 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com View From Groom:
Document Page 1 of 7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS In re ROBERT N. LUPO, Chapter 7 Debtor Case No. 09-21945-JNF ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Case 3:13-cv-01238-JPG-PMF Document 18 Filed 10/21/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #78 RICHARD M. O DONNELL, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS v. Case No. 13-cv-1238-JPG-PMF
Nonqualified Plans of Non-Profit Employers and New Code Section 409A by Danny Miller Erica Summers Conner & Winters, P.C. 1627 I Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 202-887-5711 (800) 579-0811 Nonqualified
VOL. 35, NO. 4 SPRING 2010 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Employee Benefits Waivers and Severance Arrangements: EEOC Announcement Offers Reminders for Employers Anne E. Moran One common practice
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: TPOP, LLC, 1 Chapter 11 Case No. 13-11831 (BLS) Debtors. Hearing Date: December 11, 2013 at 10am Objection Deadline: December 4,
ERISA Alert October 2007 ALBANY AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BOCA RATON BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DELAWARE DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEW JERSEY NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY ORLANDO PHILADELPHIA
Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot Contributed by Angie M. Hankins, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Many companies inadvertently mark their products with expired patents.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY, : Plaintiff, : vs. : No. 3:04CV817(WWE) WILLIAM L. OWEN, : Defendant. : / Ruling on Defendant s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 10]
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 37 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JACK and RENEE BEAM, Plaintiffs, No. 07 CV 1227 v.
Case 1:04-cv-03085-NGG-KAM Document 11 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Case :0-cv-00-EHC Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DANIEL KNAUSS United States Attorney THEODORE C. HIRT Assistant Branch Director Civil Division, Federal Programs
U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration Washington, D.C. 20210 2006-05A Alice League, Esq. ERISA SEC. General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer 3(32) Federal Reserve Employee
Case :-cv-000-l-blm Document 0 Filed 0 Page of 0 0 IN RE: ELEAZAR SALAZAR, Debtor, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, v. ELEAZAR SALAZAR, Appellant, Appellee. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 06 day of January, 2011. ROBERT E. NUGENT UNITED STATES CHIEF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN RE: VINCENT R. McMULLEN,
Case 4:09-cv-00575 Document 37 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION AMERICAN SURGICAL ASSISTANTS, INC., VS. Plaintiff, CIGNA HEALTHCARE
LED COWIJ QP APPEALS 2013 MAR 19 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHIN AN 8: 39 DIVISION II B ROBERT LONG, deceased, and AILEEN LONG, Petitioner /Beneficiary, No. 43187-4 II - Appellant, V. WASHINGTON
Case 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUZANNE BUTLER, Individually and as : Administratrix of the Estate
Is Chapter 11 Bankruptcy A Possibility? Have You Remembered Your Employee Benefit Plans? David N. Levine 1 In recent years bankruptcy has become a necessity for many companies. Some companies are liquidated
ARTICLE Qualified Plans in Puerto Rico By Elizabeth A. LaCombe In this article, Elizabeth A. LaCombe discusses some practical issues that a U.S. employer should consider before offering retirement benefits
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, firstname.lastname@example.org
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY In re: ) ) Chapter 11 ) CONCO, INC. ) Case No. 12-34933 ) Debtor. ) Hon. Joan A. Lloyd ) OBJECTIONS BY PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
Comp Time on Demand? Do we now have the long awaited answer to the question of whether police officers can take compensatory time off on demand? This summer the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARISTA RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BMG MUSIC,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and Others similarly situated, v. Michael Harrison, Esquire, Plaintiff, Defendant. OPINION Civ. No. 07-4255 (WHW) Walls,
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 email@example.com DOL Whistleblower Rule Will Have Far-Reaching Effects
Tax Memo Our PEO Company ( BCC ) has developed a professional employer organization ( PEO ) program to provide lower cost health insurance, and other benefits, to small businesses and self-employed individuals.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CATHERINE HOWELL, et al. Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES, et al. Defendants Civil No. L-04-1494 MEMORANDUM This is a proposed
Entered: July 31, 2013 Case 13-00202 Doc 20 Filed 07/31/13 Page 1 of 10 Date signed July 31, 2013 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND at GREENBELT In Re: Fely Sison Tanamor
Vol. 32, No. 1 summer 2006 Employee Relations L a w J o u r n a l Employee Benefits Spend Now, Spend Later: New Protections for Retirement Account Assets in Bankruptcy Misty A. Leon and Anne E. Moran Early
Ninth Circuit Interprets DMCA Safe Harbor in Favor of Service Providers Like Veoh By Yuo-Fong C. Amato, Associate The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment and a Rule 12(b)(6)
2013 Expert Series What Trustees in Bankruptcy Need to Know About Pension Plans Marcia Wagner, Esq., Managing Director, Wagner Law Group On September 18, 2013, PenChecks Trust hosted What Trustees in Bankruptcy
April 18, 2007 By John Lowell, Vice President, Aon Consulting On April 10, 2007, Treasury released final regulations under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 409A, relating to the taxation of nonqualified
GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO In re: RICHARD F. GOOD and MARY K. GOOD, Debtors. Case No. 03-22228 Chapter 7 Judge Arthur I. Harris MEMORANDUM OF OPINION This case is currently
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit May 15, 2008 Barbara A. Schermerhorn Clerk IN RE CHRISTOPHER
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 12 3067 LAWRENCE G. RUPPERT and THOMAS A. LARSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. ALLIANT
HMOs May Be Exposed to State Law Malpractice Actions for Mixed Treatment and Eligibility Decisions Journal of Pension Benefits Winter 2001 Tess J. Ferrera Overview Inherent difficulties with prevailing
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14-2052 IN RE: EDWARD J. PAJIAN, Debtor-Appellant. Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Case 15-10952-KJC Doc 826 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: CORINTHIAN COLLEGES, INC., ET AL., Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 15-10952 (KJC)
Insurance and the Personal Injury Stay Movant When determining whether to grant a personal injury claimant relief from the automatic stay, the court should not give consideration to the wishes of the debtor
Case 2:08-cv-02646-JWL Document 108 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS Alice L. Higgins, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 08-2646-JWL John E. Potter, Postmaster General,
CLIENT MEMORANDUM FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS In a decision that will likely reduce the number of false marking cases, the Federal Circuit
Summary Plan Description Prepared for Worcester Polytechnic Institute Defined Contribution Plan INTRODUCTION Worcester Polytechnic Institute has restated the Worcester Polytechnic Institute Defined Contribution
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION VISTA MARKETING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:12-cv-1640-T-30TBM TERRI A. BURKETT and JOSEPH R. PARK, Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE
Alert Update on Bankruptcy Fee Shifting November 10, 2015 Each litigant [in the U.S. legal system] pays [its] own attorney s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise. Baker Botts
May 20, 2013 Submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance Assistance Employee Benefits Security Administration Room N-5653 U.S. Department of Labor
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14-2423 IN RE: SWEPORTS, LTD., Debtor-Appellee. APPEAL OF: MUCH SHELIST, P.C., et al., Creditors-Appellants. Appeal from the United States
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN In re BODEN J. PERRY and LUNDI D. PERRY, Case No. 05-24027 Chapter 7 Debtors. MEMORANDUM DECISION ON TRUSTEE S MOTION FOR TURNOVER The debtors
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED March 3, 2016 No. 15-11188 In re: AMERICAN LEBANESE SYRIAN ASSOCIATED CHARITIES, INCORPORATED;
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO In re: RALPH MONTANO and ELSIE M. MONTANO, Debtors. No. 7-04-17866 SL RALPH MONTANO and ELSIE MONTANO, Plaintiffs, v. No. 7-1026 S FIRST LIGHT
Case 3:06-cv-00701-MJR-DGW Document 500 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #13368 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ANTHONY ABBOTT, et al., ) ) No: 06-701-MJR-DGW
Mallo and Perkins and The End of the Two Year Rule: Why Income Tax Debts May be Harder to Discharge in Bankruptcy Written by: Jeffrey M. Sklarz Green & Sklarz LLC New Haven, Connecticut Jeff is a member
MEMORANDUM Date: June 25, 2009 To: Defense counsel in RIAA and MPAA individual file-sharing suits From: Fred von Lohmann, Senior Staff Attorney Re: Dischargeability of copyright judgments in personal bankruptcy
Proposed Labor Regulations Would Require Greater Disclosures of Fees, Compensation, and Conflicts of Interest for Employee Benefit Plan Services Providers PETER M. VARNEY AND PATRICK C. DICARLO The authors
2:13-cv-13095-PJD-MJH Doc # 12 Filed 01/30/14 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 725 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: DAVID C. KAPLA, Civil Case No. 13-13095 Honorable Patrick
Case 3:06-cv-00701-MJR-DGW Document 526 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #13631 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ANTHONY ABBOTT, et al., ) ) No: 06-701-MJR-DGW Plaintiffs,
Case :-cv-0-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 WO Wintrode Enterprises Incorporated, v. PSTL LLC, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, Defendants. No. CV--0-PHX-DGC
Employee benefi t packages are increasingly viewed as an important form of compensation. The right mix of salary and other benefits can attract, and keep, top-quality employees. Non-Qualifi ed Fringe Benefi
1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants
Case 3:12-cv-01348-HZ Document 32 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 144 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KELLY J. YOX, an individual, v. Plaintiff, No.
Case 1:14-cv-01265-JEB Document 17 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INGA L. PARSONS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 14-1265 (JEB v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
Case 4:05-cv-03198 Document 71 Filed in TXSD on 07/17/07 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION YOLANDA M. AGUIRRE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL
4:13-cv-10877-MAG-LJM Doc # 16 Filed 07/03/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL BUSSARD, v. Plaintiff, SHERMETA, ADAMS AND VON ALLMEN,
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 October 6, 2004 The Honorable Lane Evans Ranking Minority Member Committee on Veterans Affairs House of Representatives Subject: Veterans
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HOWARD MEDICAL, INC. t/a CIVIL ACTION ADVANCE AMBULANCE SERVICE, NO. 00-5977 Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, t/a TEMPLE
employee benefits update october/november 2011 Setting sail to a safe harbor Is a safe harbor 401(k) plan right for you? Looking for money What you need to know about plan loans THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
When Is a Partner a Partner For New York Tax Purposes? by Peter L. Faber Peter L. Faber is a partner with McDermott Will & Emery LLP, New York. A New York administrative law judge has held that a lawyer
SEPARATION AGREEMENTS: BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO BY: Daniel R. Brice, Esq. Jonathan M. Cerrito, Esq. WWW.BKLAWYERS.COM The New Yorker Collection 2006 Frank Cotham from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.
., identifjting data deleted to prevent clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privac) PUBLIC COPY U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Of$ce of Administrative
Forum Shopping and Limitations on Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction John D. Snethen Section Chief, Tax Litigation Office of the Attorney General of Indiana 1 Bankruptcy Background What is Forum Shopping? Taxpayer