Will the Supreme Court Reinforce Or Undermine Basic ERISA Principles When it Decides a Death Benefit Dispute?

Will the Supreme Court Reinforce Or Undermine Basic ERISA Principles When it Decides a Death Benefit Dispute? PDF Author: Albert Feuer
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0

Get Book Here

Book Description
In Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, (argued Oct. 7, 2008) (No. 07-636) the Supreme Court will decide whether a participant's divorcing spouse may waive her entitlement to the participant's death benefit without using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). This article was prepared before the Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 869 (January 26, 2009). My brief commentary on such decision entitled A Unanimous ERISA Decision by the Supreme Court Raises Troubling Questions, appears at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1336350. ERISA addresses benefit disputes between two persons claiming to be a beneficiary. Plan terms determine who has the entitlement. Where the plan terms do not permit a waiver such as the one at issue, the waiver is not effective. Furthermore, the statutory prohibition against the alienation of benefits requires that pension plan terms permit QDROs to determine benefit entitlements, but prohibits them from using a domestic relations order other than a QDRO, such as the one at issue, to determine benefit entitlements. Thus, pension plans must disregard settlements between the parties, whether or not incorporated in court orders or voluntary agreements, except to the extent the settlement is part of a QDRO. Finally, the article suggested it would be useful for the Supreme Court to reaffirm in this decision the Court's consistent holdings that ERISA protects the right both to receive and to keep employee benefits. Thus, no one may force a person entitled to an ERISA plan benefit to pay another the amount of the benefit, unless the plan authorizes such payment. Such authorization may exist if the plan, unlike most pension and life insurance plans, permits the assignment of benefits. There may be such authorization if a plan, unlike most pension and life insurance plans, permits the assignment of benefits. This protection applies to all ERISA plans, both pension and welfare plans, and to all plan participants and beneficiaries, whether they are rich, poor, deserving, or greedy.

Will the Supreme Court Reinforce Or Undermine Basic ERISA Principles When it Decides a Death Benefit Dispute?

Will the Supreme Court Reinforce Or Undermine Basic ERISA Principles When it Decides a Death Benefit Dispute? PDF Author: Albert Feuer
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0

Get Book Here

Book Description
In Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, (argued Oct. 7, 2008) (No. 07-636) the Supreme Court will decide whether a participant's divorcing spouse may waive her entitlement to the participant's death benefit without using a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). This article was prepared before the Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 869 (January 26, 2009). My brief commentary on such decision entitled A Unanimous ERISA Decision by the Supreme Court Raises Troubling Questions, appears at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1336350. ERISA addresses benefit disputes between two persons claiming to be a beneficiary. Plan terms determine who has the entitlement. Where the plan terms do not permit a waiver such as the one at issue, the waiver is not effective. Furthermore, the statutory prohibition against the alienation of benefits requires that pension plan terms permit QDROs to determine benefit entitlements, but prohibits them from using a domestic relations order other than a QDRO, such as the one at issue, to determine benefit entitlements. Thus, pension plans must disregard settlements between the parties, whether or not incorporated in court orders or voluntary agreements, except to the extent the settlement is part of a QDRO. Finally, the article suggested it would be useful for the Supreme Court to reaffirm in this decision the Court's consistent holdings that ERISA protects the right both to receive and to keep employee benefits. Thus, no one may force a person entitled to an ERISA plan benefit to pay another the amount of the benefit, unless the plan authorizes such payment. Such authorization may exist if the plan, unlike most pension and life insurance plans, permits the assignment of benefits. There may be such authorization if a plan, unlike most pension and life insurance plans, permits the assignment of benefits. This protection applies to all ERISA plans, both pension and welfare plans, and to all plan participants and beneficiaries, whether they are rich, poor, deserving, or greedy.

A Unanimous ERISA Decision by the Supreme Court Raises Troubling Questions

A Unanimous ERISA Decision by the Supreme Court Raises Troubling Questions PDF Author: Albert Feuer
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 4

Get Book Here

Book Description
In Kennedy v. DuPont Savings and Investment Plan (the quot;DuPont Planquot;), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 869 (January 26, 2009), the Supreme Court decided that if a voluntary disclaimer in a domestic relations order (quot;DROquot;) by the divorcing spouse of an ERISA pension plan participant did not comply with the terms of the governing plan documents, the plan could pay the death benefit only to the participant's designee, who was the former spouse and disclaimant. The Court agreed with the former spouse that her disclaimer was ineffective. Thus, the plan administrator correctly denied the claim of the participant's default designee. The decision raises at least seven troubling questions for family law practitioners, ERISA practitioners, ERISA plan sponsors, administrators, participants and administrators. 1) May Pension Plans Defer to Disclaimers by Separating or Divorcing Spouses? 2) May Pension Plans Defer to Divorcing and Separating Spouses Who Seek to Retain Survivor Benefits? 3) May a Pension Plan Be Obligated to Make a Double Benefit Payment Following a Divorce or Marital Separation? 4) Must Pension and Life Insurance Plan Administrators Defer to Disclaimers by Separating or Divorcing Spouses if the Plans Do Not Otherwise Permit Disclaimers by Such Individuals? 5) If Pension and Life Insurance Plan Administrators May Not Defer to Disclaimers by Separating or Divorcing Spouses, May the Participant's Default Designee Use State Law to Obtain the Benefit from the Disclaimant? 6) Must Pension Plan Administrators Defer to QDROs Or Any Other ERISA Requirements if the Plan Documents Do Not Provide for such Deference? 7) Does ERISA Permit Benefit Claims by Participants and Beneficiaries in Plans, Such as Top-Hat Plans, Which are not Subject to the General Fiduciary Rules?Many of these issues are discussed more extensively in quot;Will the Supreme Court Reinforce or Undermine Basic ERISA Principles When it Decides a Death Benefit Dispute,quot; 3 Charleston L. Rev. 289 ( 2009), prepared before the decision which is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337276.

A Curious ERISA Case Before the Supreme Court Becomes More Confused

A Curious ERISA Case Before the Supreme Court Becomes More Confused PDF Author: Albert Feuer
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0

Get Book Here

Book Description
Kennedy v. DuPont Savings Plan Administrator, No. 07-636 has become even more confused. The estate of a participant (William Kennedy denoted as William) claimed to be entitled to receive William's death benefit on the ground that the designated beneficiary and his former spouse (Liv Kennedy) had waived her right to receive the benefit thereby entitling William's estate, as contingent beneficiary, to that benefit. The waiver was part of a domestic relations order that was not a QDRO. After hearing the oral argument the Supreme Court requested and received confusing supplemental briefs that were supposed to discuss in effect the question whether the waiver could be effective if the death benefits came from a life insurance plan, which is not subject to the prohibition on the alienation of benefits that is applicable to the death benefit from the pension plan at issue. The Supreme Court may still be able to discern three ERISA core principles from all the briefs that have been filed in this case and from the oral argument. First, ERISA benefit entitlements are determined by Plan terms. Second, ERISA protects benefit entitlement after the plan has paid the benefits. Third, the QDRO Provisions apply to all DROs pertaining to pension plans. The Court may reinforce each principle by using them explicitly in a decision on behalf of the Plan administrator.

Supreme Court Preview

Supreme Court Preview PDF Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Constitutional law
Languages : en
Pages : 278

Get Book Here

Book Description


Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Model Rules of Professional Conduct PDF Author: American Bar Association. House of Delegates
Publisher: American Bar Association
ISBN: 9781590318737
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 216

Get Book Here

Book Description
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

Confirmation Hearing on Federal Appointments

Confirmation Hearing on Federal Appointments PDF Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Judges
Languages : en
Pages : 738

Get Book Here

Book Description


Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C., 1961-1968

Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C., 1961-1968 PDF Author: Frank M. Marine
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Civil RICO actions
Languages : en
Pages : 612

Get Book Here

Book Description


Assessing Genetic Risks

Assessing Genetic Risks PDF Author: Institute of Medicine
Publisher: National Academies Press
ISBN: 0309047986
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 353

Get Book Here

Book Description
Raising hopes for disease treatment and prevention, but also the specter of discrimination and "designer genes," genetic testing is potentially one of the most socially explosive developments of our time. This book presents a current assessment of this rapidly evolving field, offering principles for actions and research and recommendations on key issues in genetic testing and screening. Advantages of early genetic knowledge are balanced with issues associated with such knowledge: availability of treatment, privacy and discrimination, personal decision-making, public health objectives, cost, and more. Among the important issues covered: Quality control in genetic testing. Appropriate roles for public agencies, private health practitioners, and laboratories. Value-neutral education and counseling for persons considering testing. Use of test results in insurance, employment, and other settings.

National Labor Relations Board Casehandling Manual: Unfair labor practice proceedings

National Labor Relations Board Casehandling Manual: Unfair labor practice proceedings PDF Author: United States. National Labor Relations Board
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Industrial relations
Languages : en
Pages :

Get Book Here

Book Description


Personal Privacy in an Information Society

Personal Privacy in an Information Society PDF Author: United States. Privacy Protection Study Commission
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Archives
Languages : en
Pages : 672

Get Book Here

Book Description