Source: http://mywallpapers.mobi/positron-emission-decay-determination-on-coverage-under-title-iv-of-erisa-pension-benefit/
Timestamp: 2019-05-19 09:25:37
Document Index: 618579730

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 219', '§ 408', '§ 410', '§ 415', '§ 4971', '§ 4974', '§ 4975', '§ 1144']

positron emission decay Determination on coverage under Title IV of ERISA – Pension Benefit … - MywallpapersMobi
06.10.2018 Comments 0 Feedbacks on “positron emission decay Determination on coverage under Title IV of ERISA – Pension Benefit …”University, academic, accounting, application, article, assignment, chemistry, college, compare, content, contrast, course, courses, descriptive, dissertation, english, essay, essays, essaywriters, help, history, homework, maker, mba, paers, paper, papers, phd, questi, questions, report, research, school, statement, term, text, topics, worksheet, write, writer, writing by admin
positron emission decay Determination on coverage under Title IV of ERISA – Pension Benefit …
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE COMPANY AND THE SELLERS
Employment Matters Benefit Plans
ARTICLE 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE COMPANY AND THE SELLER
Follow Title IV of ERISA clause.
Title Iv of Erisa
Title IV of ERISA Sample Clauses
Title IV of ERISA (i) No Company Benefit Plan is a multiemployer pension plan (as defined in Section 3(37) of ERISA) (Multiemployer Plan) or other pension plan subject to Title IV of ERISA and neither the Company nor any ERISA Affiliate has sponsored or contributed to or been required to contribute to a Multiemployer Plan or other pension plan subject to Title IV of ERISA, and (ii) no material liability under Title IV of ERISA has been incurred by the Company or any ERISA Affiliate that has not been satisfied in full, and no condition exists that presents a material risk to the Company or any ERISA Affiliate of incurring or being subject (whether primarily, jointly or secondarily) to a material liability thereunder.
Title IV of ERISA. No Company Employee Plan is subject to Title IV of ERISA, is a “multiemployer plan” (within the meaning of Sections 3(37) or 4001(a)(3) of ERISA or Section 414(f) of the Code) (a “Multiemployer Plan”) or “single-employer plan under multiple controlled groups” as described in Section 4063 of ERISA, and none of the Company, its Subsidiaries, any ERISA Affiliate or any of their respective predecessors has ever contributed to, contributes to, has ever been required to contribute to, or otherwise participated in or participates in or in any way, directly or indirectly, has any Liability with respect to any plan subject to Section 412 of the Code, Section 302 of ERISA or Title IV of ERISA, including, without limitation, any Multiemployer Plan or any “single-employer plan” (within the meaning of Section 4001(a)(15) of ERISA) which is subject to Sections 4063, 4064 or 4069 of ERISA.
Title IV of ERISA. Except as set forth on Schedule 2.10(e) of the Disclosure Letter, (i) neither the Company nor any ERISA Affiliate has incurred any material liability under Title IV of ERISA or is subject to Section 302 of ERISA or Section 412 of the Code, and no event, transaction or condition exists that would result in any material liability to the Surviving Corporation or any ERISA Affiliate following the Closing, and (ii) no Company Benefit Plan is a multiemployer plan as defined in Section 3(37) of ERISA or multiple employer plan under Section 4063 of ERISA.
Title IV of ERISA. Except as set forth in Section 4.14 of the Sellers Disclosure Schedule, no Company Benefit Plan is a multiemployer pension plan (as defined in Section 3(37) of ERISA) (Multiemployer Plan) or other pension plan
Title IV of ERISA. To the knowledge of Parent, (A) no Parent Benefit Plan is a Multiemployer Plan or other pension plan subject to Title IV of ERISA and Parent has not sponsored or contributed to or been required to contribute to a Multiemployer
Introduced in the House as H.R. 2 by John Herman Dent ( D – PA ) on January 3, 1973
Passed the House on February 28, 1974 ( 376-4 )
Reported by the joint conference committee on August 12, 1974; agreed to by the House on August 20, 1974 ( 407-2 ) and by the Senate on August 22, 1974 ( 85-0 )
Mead Corp. v. Tilley , 490 U.S. 714 (1989)
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon , 498 U.S. 133 (1990)
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden , 503 U.S. 318 (1992)
Mertens v. Hewitt Associates , 508 U.S. 248 (1993)
Lockheed Corp. v. Spink , 517 U.S. 882 (1996)
Boggs v. Boggs , 520 U.S. 833 (1997)
Pegram v. Herdrich , 530 U.S. 211 (2000)
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran , 536 U.S. 355 (2002)
Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. , 547 U.S. 356 (2006)
Tibble v. Edison International , No. 13–550 , 575 U.S. ___ (2015)
Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan , No. 14–723 , 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) ( Pub.L. 93–406 , 88 Stat. 829 , enacted September 2, 1974, codified in part at 29 U.S.C. ch. 18 ) is a federal United States tax and labor law that establishes minimum standards for pension plans in private industry. It contains rules on the federal income tax effects of transactions associated with employee benefit plans. ERISA was enacted to protect the interests of employee benefit plan participants and their beneficiaries by:
Establishing standards of conduct for plan fiduciaries ;
Providing for appropriate remedies and access to the federal courts .
Responsibility for interpretation and enforcement of ERISA is divided among the Department of Labor , the Department of the Treasury (particularly the Internal Revenue Service ), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation .
In 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy created the President’s Committee on Corporate Pension Plans. The movement for pension reform gained some momentum when the Studebaker Corporation , an automobile manufacturer, closed its plant in 1963. [1] Its pension plan was so poorly funded that Studebaker could not afford to provide all employees with their pensions. The company created a program in which 3,600 workers who had reached the retirement age of 60 received full pension benefits, 4,000 workers aged 40–59 who had ten years with Studebaker received lump sum payments valued at roughly 15% of the actuarial value of their pension benefits, and the remaining 2,900 workers received no pensions.
In 1963, Senator John L. McClellan (D) of Arkansas began an investigation through the Permanent Investigations Senate Subcommittee into labor leader George Barasch , alleging misuse and diversion of $4,000,000 of union benefit funds. After three years the investigation had failed to find any wrongdoing, [2] [3] but had resulted in several proposed laws, including McClellan’s October 12, 1965 bill setting new fiduciary standards for plan trustees. [4] Additionally, due much in part to his “dismay” over Barasch’s sole control over union benefit plan funds, [5] [6] Senator Jacob K. Javits (R) of New York also introduced bills in 1965 and 1967 increasing regulation on welfare and pension funds to limit the control of plan trustees and administrators and to address the funding, vesting, reporting, and disclosure issues identified by the presidential committee. [7] [8] His bills were opposed by business groups and labor unions , which sought to retain the flexibility they enjoyed under pre-ERISA law. Provisions from all three bills ultimately evolved into the guidelines enacted in ERISA. [5] [6]
On September 12, 1972, NBC broadcast an hour-long television special , Pensions: The Broken Promise, that showed millions of Americans the consequences of poorly funded pension plans and onerous vesting requirements. In the following years, Congress held a series of public hearings on pension issues and public support for pension reform grew significantly.
ERISA was enacted in 1974 and signed into law by President Gerald Ford on September 2, 1974, Labor Day . [9] [10] In the years since 1974, ERISA has been amended repeatedly.
Coverage[ edit ]
Pension plans[ edit ]
Health benefit plans[ edit ]
Other relevant amendments to ERISA include the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act , the Mental Health Parity Act , and the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act .
Pension vesting[ edit ]
Before ERISA, some defined benefit pension plans required decades of service before an employee’s benefit became vested. It was not unusual for a plan to provide no benefit at all to an employee who left employment before the specified retirement age (e.g. 65), regardless of the length of the employee’s service.
Under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 , employer contributions made after 2006 to a defined contribution plan must become vested at 100% after three years or under a 2nd-6th year gradual-vesting schedule (20% per year beginning with the second year of service, i.e. 100% after six years). (ref. 120 Stat. 988 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.) The Technical Explanation of H.R.4, of the PPA, Page 156 Vesting Rules, states that the PPA amends both the ERISA and Code. Different rules apply with respect to employer contributions made before 2007. Employee contributions are always 100% vested. Accrued benefits under a defined benefit plan must become vested at 100% after five years or under a 3rd-7th year gradual vesting schedule (20% per year beginning with the third year of vesting service, and 100% after seven years). (ref. 26 U.S.C. 411(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. 203(a)(2).)
Pension funding[ edit ]
Before the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), a defined benefit plan maintained a funding standard account, which was charged annually for the cost of benefits earned during the year and credited for employer contributions. Increases in the plan’s liabilities due to benefit improvements, changes in actuarial assumptions, and any other reasons were amortized and charged to the account; decreases in the plan’s liabilities were amortized and credited to the account. Every year, the employer was required to contribute the amount necessary to keep the funding standard account from falling below $0 at year-end.
The PPA has different funding requirements for multiemployer pension plans, which preserve most of the pre-PPA funding rules, including the funding standard account. Under PPA, increases and decreases in the plan’s liabilities are amortized, but the amortization period for benefit improvements adopted after 2007 are shortened. As with single-employer plans, multiemployer pension plans that are significantly underfunded are subject to restrictions. The restrictions, which may limit the plan’s ability to improve benefits or require the plan to reduce employees’ benefits, vary depending whether a pension plan’s funding status is termed “endangered”, “seriously endangered”, or “critical”. The restrictions accompanying each deficient funding status are progressively more severe as funding status worsens.
ERISA preemption[ edit ]
ERISA Section 514 preempts all state laws that relate to any employee benefit plan, with certain, enumerated exceptions. [14] The most important exceptions — i.e. state laws that survive despite the fact that they may relate to an employee benefit plan — are state insurance, banking, or securities laws, generally applicable criminal laws, and domestic relations orders that meet ERISA’s qualification requirements. [15]
A major limitation is placed on the insurance exception, known as the “deemer clause”, which essentially provides that state insurance law cannot operate on employer self-funded benefit plans. The Supreme Court has created another limitation on the insurance exception, in which even a law that regulates insurance is preempted if it purports to add a remedy to a participant or beneficiary in an employee benefit plan that ERISA did not explicitly provide.
The result of ERISA preemption is that the only remedy available to a covered person who has been denied benefits or dropped from coverage altogether is to seek an order from a federal judge (no jury trial is permitted) directing the Plan (in actuality the insurance company that underwrites and administers it) to pay for “medically necessary” care. If a person dies before the case can be heard, however, the claim dies with him or her, since ERISA provides no remedy for injury or wrongful death caused by the withholding of care.
Even if benefits are improperly denied, the insurance company cannot be sued for any resulting injury or wrongful death, regardless of whether it acted in bad faith in denying benefits. Insurers operating ERISA plans enjoy several immunities not available to other types of insurance companies. ERISA preempts all conflicting state laws, including state statutes prohibiting unfair claims practices and causes of action arising under state common law for insurance bad faith . [17] There is no right to a jury trial in ERISA benefits actions. [18] Although Americans normally take for granted the right to testify on their behalf, plaintiffs have no right to present live testimony in ERISA bench trials , in which the judge simply reads through the documents that formed the record originally before the ERISA plan administrator and performs de novo review. [19] Finally, punitive damages are not allowed in actions for ERISA benefits. [20]
Many persons included among the some 29 million people presently without health care coverage in the United States are former ERISA “subscribers”, insurance terminology for Plan beneficiaries, who have been denied benefits-usually on the ground that the prescribed care is not medically necessary or is “experimental”-or dropped from coverage, often because they have lost their jobs due to the very illness for which care was denied.[ citation needed ]
Many consumer and health care advocates have called for a “restoration of the freedom of contract enforcement,” to the 75% of Americans insured under these work place group plans-in effect, a repeal of the ERISA preemption. Permitting these insured persons access to customary state remedies (98% of all civil disputes are resolved in state courts) would, they contend, result in a substantial reduction in arbitrary denial of care benefits, simultaneously alleviating a major burden on state Medicaid systems and clogged federal court dockets.[ citation needed ]
Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act exemption[ edit ]
The Statute[ edit ]
Title I: Protection of Employee Benefit Rights[ edit ]
Certain transactions between fiduciary and the plan, or between the plan and certain “parties in interest” are prohibited (unless otherwise exempt). [25]
The United States Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) is responsible for overseeing Title I, promulgating regulations implementing and interpreting the statute as well as conducting enforcement. Plan fiduciaries and plan participants may also bring certain civil causes of action in Federal Court.
The current Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits and head of the Employee Benefits Security Administration is the Hon. Phyllis Borzi , who was confirmed on July 10, 2009 [1] . Past Assistant Secretaries include the Hon. Bradford P. Campbell , the Hon. Ann L. Combs and the Hon. Olena Berg-Lacy.
Title II: Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code Relating to Retirement Plans[ edit ]
Addition of various requirements for a pension plan to be tax-favored (“qualified”), including:
Title III: Jurisdiction, Administration, Enforcement; Joint Pension Task Force, Etc.[ edit ]
It also created the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries , which licenses actuaries to perform a variety of actuarial tasks required of pension plans under ERISA. The Joint Board administers two examinations to prospective Enrolled Actuaries. After an individual passes the two exams and completes sufficient relevant professional experience, she or he becomes an Enrolled Actuary .
Title IV: Plan Termination Insurance[ edit ]
Single-employer plans[ edit ]
Standard termination[ edit ]
Distress termination[ edit ]
Costs of continuing the plan have become unreasonably burdensome solely because of a decline in the employer’s workforce.
Termination initiated by the PBGC[ edit ]
Multiemployer plans[ edit ]
Non-ERISA status and bankruptcy[ edit ]
In 2005, the BAPCPA amended the Bankruptcy Code, by exempting most organized retirement plans, even those not subject to ERISA, and accorded them protected status, claimable as exempt property by a debtor declaring bankruptcy under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code .
Now, most pension plans have the same protection as an ERISA anti-alienation clause giving these pensions the same protection as a spendthrift trust . The only remaining unprotected areas are the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP IRA . The SEP IRA is functionally similar to a self-settle trust, and a sound policy reason would exist to not shield SEP IRAs, but many financial planners argue that a rollover (or direct transfer) from a SEP IRA to a rollover IRA would give those funds protected status, too.
Finding statutes[ edit ]
Portions of ERISA are codified in various places of the United States Code , including 29 U.S.C. ch. 18 , and Internal Revenue Code sections § 219 and § 408 (relating to the Individual Retirement Account ) and sections § 410 through § 415 , and § 4971 , § 4974 and § 4975 .
A cross-reference between the sections of the ERISA law and the corresponding sections in the U.S.Code can be found at http://www.harp.org/erisaxref.htm .
^ “The U.S. Department of Labor ERISA at 40 Timeline” . United States Department of Labor. 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
^ “Pension Fund Probe: Searching Questions and Puzzling Answers”. Herald Tribune. August 8, 1965.
^ Barkdoll, Robert (October 13, 1965). “Bill to Guard Welfare, Pension Funds Offered” . Los Angeles Times. p. 1.
^ a b McMillan, III, James (2000). “Misclassification and Employer Discretion Under ERISA” (PDF). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law. 2 (4): 837–866.
^ Whitten, Leslie H. (August 2, 1965). “Javits Aims to Protect Union Funds”. Journal American.
^ “Javits Bids U.S. Curb Union Pension Funds”. Daily News. August 4, 1965.
^ Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T. “Gerald R. Ford: “Statement on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.,” September 2, 1974″ . The American Presidency Project. University of California – Santa Barbara.
^ Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T. “Gerald R. Ford: “Remarks on Signing the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.,” September 2, 1974″ . The American Presidency Project. University of California – Santa Barbara.
^ Costello, Daniel (October 18, 2004). “Not a future they expected” . Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on 2004-10-19. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
^ Schultz, Ellen E. (November 10, 2004). “Companies Sue Union Retirees To Cut Promised Health Benefits” . The Wall Street Journal . p. 1. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
^ See, e.g., Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran , 536 U.S. 355, 364 (2002).
^ 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b) .
^ Mary Ann Chirba-Martin; Troyen A. Brennan (April 1994). “The critical role of ERISA in state health reform”. Health Affairs. 13 (2): 142–156. doi : 10.1377/hlthaff.13.2.142 .
^ Kidneigh v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 345 F.3d 1182 , 1184 ( 10th Cir. 2003); Bast v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of Am., 150 F.3d 1003 ( 9th Cir. 1998); Kanne v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. , 867 F.2d 489 , 492 (9th Cir. 1988).
^ Thomas v. Oregon Fruit Prods. Co., 228 F.3d 991 , 996-97 (9th Cir. 2000) (listing cases and joining their holding).
^ Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084 , 1094-1095 (9th Cir. 1999) ( en banc ).
^ Varhola v. Doe , 820 F.2d 809 , 812-13 ( 6th Cir. 1987).
^ Hawaii Institute for Public Affairs (2004). “Prepaid Health Care Act” . Retrieved 2011-02-19.
Department of Labor 2003 “interpretive bulletin,” Field Assistance Bulletin 2003-3 , May 19, 2003, concerning allocation of expenses in a defined contribution plan.
LA Times, 21 August 2005, “The Safety Net She Believed In Was Pulled Away When She Fell” (registration required)
Frequently Asked Questions – ERISA Governed Health and Disability Claims
Retrieved from ” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act_of_1974&oldid=860625850 ”
This page was last edited on 21 September 2018, at 23:56 (UTC).
Posted in University, academic, accounting, application, article, assignment, chemistry, college, compare, content, contrast, course, courses, descriptive, dissertation, english, essay, essays, essaywriters, help, history, homework, maker, mba, paers, paper, papers, phd, questi, questions, report, research, school, statement, term, text, topics, worksheet, write, writer, writingTagged contrast, essay generator, ghostwriter, help, homework help
Hickory Ridge Firearms Hickory Ridge Firearms 2323 Pearl Rd Medina, OH Factory Outlets …