We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 158

Prenuptial agreement not an effective waiver of spousal rights

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2013

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit demonstrates the potential limitations of prenuptial agreements purporting to

IRS clarifies treatment of dividends and dividend equivalents paid on restricted stock and restricted stock units under section 162(m)

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 29 2012

Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 162(m) generally prohibits a publicly traded corporation from deducting compensation paid to “covered employees” in excess of $1 million per year

Contingent event benefit constitutes early retirement subsidy for purposes of QDRO

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2013

As part of a divorce settlement, a participant in a defined benefit retirement plan and his spouse entered into a qualified domestic relations order

Court holds that plan may recoup overpayment of pension benefits

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2012

The district court for the District of Massachusetts held that a multiemployer pension plan may recoup the overpayment of benefits, notwithstanding the participant’s intervening bankruptcy

Guidance issued on ERISA 101(j) notice on underfunded defined benefit plans

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 28 2012

As sponsors of defined benefit plans are well aware, certain limitations are imposed on a defined benefit plan when a plan’s adjusted funding target attainment percentage is below 80 percent

Employer breached fiduciary duty by allowing ineligible employee to enroll in plan

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 29 2013

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that an employer breached its fiduciary duty by misleading an employee regarding

Acquired employees were properly denied shutdown benefits

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2012

Acquisitions and the offer of transition benefits for acquired employees under a seller’s plans can be tricky

Employer is not liable for allegedly ambiguous summary plan description

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2012

In Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying the Supreme Court’s ruling in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, held that the plaintiffparticipants could not sue for benefits allegedly promised by the summary plan description (SPD) but not the plan, because statements in an SPD do not constitute the terms of a plan

Medical plan preauthorization language violates SPD standards

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 29 2012

In Koehler v. AETNA Health Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Aetna’s benefits decision was not, as a matter of law, entitled to deference where the same document, Aetna’s certificate of coverage, served as both the plan document and summary plan description (SPD

Notice 2012-59 90 day waiting period limitation

  • Hodgson Russ LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 28 2012

For plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, a group health plan or health insurance issuer may not use a waiting period that exceeds 90 days