Talk:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

message: Because of the operation of the automatic stay and the power of the United States trustee [[[incorrect; should read simply "bankruptcy trustee"] to avoid transfers and other transactions within a certain period under Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code [????? incomplete sentence]
According to Nicholas Brannick's article in the 2004 Ohio State Law Journal, At the Crossroads of Three Codes (IRS, Bankruptcy, ERISA) page 1606 "Despite the appearance of protection for the PBGC's interest in the event of termination, the Bankruptcy Code frequently strips the PBGC of the protection provided under ERISA. Under ERISA, termination liability may arise on the date of termination, but the lien that protects the PBGC's interest in that liability must be perfected"  But the act of perfecting a lien is considered by the ill-advised [non-neutral point of view] bankruptcy judges to be the equivalent of other post-petition "transfers" which the bankrupcty trustee can avoid.  This is due to the definition of a "transfer" to include [sic] things like obtaining a security interest or lien or even the perfecting of such security interest.
A similar problem with interpretation of the powers of the trustee to avoid transfer also showed up in the infamous [non-neutral point of view] Deprizio case, which Congress thouight [sic] they correct [sic] in the 1994 Bankruptcy Reform [actually the correction was made in the 1984 amendments, not the 1994 Bankruptcy Reform Act.] Most recently in the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act, Congress added Section 547(i) to correct the judges [non-neutral point of view] on reversing transfers for non-insiders being treated as insiders.
::Note: I moved the above text from the main article on 7 January 2006, and added the bolded comments at that time. Famspear 18:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How bankruptcy law hurts the PBGC

message: I think we need a separate article to deal with this and we can link both the ERISA and the PBGC article's termination section to it.  I will look for my study note written by former PBGC chief actuary Ron Gebhardsbauer.John wesley 19:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan Termination article

message: from 1 entitled "House approves $1.1T bill financing government", it says "...The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. estimates that the fund that backs multi-employer plans is about $42.4 billion short of the money needed to cover benefits for plans that have failed or will fail...."--Billymac00 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Budget and pensions 

message: Five hundred dollars for the best explanation, one thousand if it's in plain English. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: " A congressional or federal charter is a federal statute that establishes a corporation. Congress has issued charters since 1791, although most charters were issued after the start of the 20th century."  Hope that helps.  Cheers! Sandcherry (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not one bit. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "federal corporation"?  

message: *B Sandcherry (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a "cold" wikilink? -The Gnome (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine it's a typo for could wikilink. I would assume in other contexts a cold wikilink is an un-piped link, but that doesn't apply here. MarginalCost (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for clarifying that. I was searching high and low for that new 'term'.  -The Gnome (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was typo for “could”, dang teeny touchscreen/autotype... But now I want to come up with a meaning for “cold” link ;-}. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

text:  Based on The Gnome's comment, I support "wholly owned government corporation", as at Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (which reads slightly better than the version at Export–Import Bank of the United States). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

text: TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The only real difference between the two versions proposed in this RfC is how PBGC is defined. The rest of the text is identical in the two versions. PGBC is defined by law as a "wholly owned Government corporation," which is a subset of Congressionally chartered organisations. The descriptions in other sources may vary (and some may indeed include "federally chartered" in them) but we have to respect the official designation as set by law. The fact that we happen to have a wikilink for another definition is, of course, irrelevant; otherwise, the streetlight effect bias kicks in. -The Gnome (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Greetings, Sandcherry. Without commenting on the the substance of your proposal, let me again point out that the only difference between the two versions proposed in this RfC is how PBGC is defined. The rest of the text is identical in the two versions and should be, if anyone wants to initiate it, the subject of a separate RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

text: The law says "wholly owned Government corporation." If other sources, even government sources, paraphrase or misquote the law, this does not give us permission to do the same in Wikipedia: The prime, most reliable source on how the law defines something is obviously the law itself. Additional definitions may perhaps be tolerated, as a matter of additional information, but the prime definition is the law's.  -The Gnome (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what the law says. I read your comment. I understood your comment. My comment was in relation to the question being asked of this RfC - Which of the following opening sentences is clearer, A or B? - In my view, the most commonly used term is the clearest. When government sources, reliable sources, The Department of Justice, The United States Supreme Court and Congress all use the term agency to refer to the PBGC, I think Wikipedia is on safe ground per our policies and guidelines in using that term as well. Your mileage may vary. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. As to "most commonly used terms," I'd venture that, for example, most people in the U.S. commonly call policemen "cops," yet Wikipedia persists in not using descriptions such as "the cops arrived" in articles. But since your criterion is "clarity," could you please elaborate on why you think the term "agency" is so much clearer than the  term "corporation"?  -The Gnome (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

text: We still disagree, Isaidnoway, but I have to congratulate you on the thorough work. That's the way to do it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Please re-read the question in the RfC. Can you explain what a "federally chartered corporation" is? in plain English? I've been a PBGC contractor since 2002, and I can't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read my response. I accepted the term "corporation" from choice B, but qualified that choice by explicitly pointing out that we need to use the terminology used by the law of the land, which is plain and simple: A wholly owned government corporation and if there are terms in that which sound difficult to some people then, sorry, we cannot simplify it any more. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler,” as attributed to Einstein. (The tern "federally chartered" comes nowhere near my choice.) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey