ERISA Law Answer Book, Sixth Edition

ERISA Law Answer Book is the practical desk reference that provides clear, concise, authoritative answers to more than 1,300 key questions - covering everything from benefit plan design, administration, communication, amendment, coverage, funding, distribution, and defense to fiduciary liabilities and litigation issues. It helps you ensure compliance with ERISA law...limit exposure to liability...avoid litigation...prevent plan disqualification...and make plan administration more efficient and effective. Designed for fast, easy use, the ERISA Law Answer Book features: Answers to just about any ERISA question instantly at your fingertips Up-to-date coverage on ERISA-related developments Advice on the best course of action when dealing with ERISA issues Extensive coverage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) Scores of practice pointers and examples Citations to statutes, regulations, and case law Detailed analysis of ERISA provisions Internal Revenue Code sections and interpretations ERISA Law Answer Book has been updated top include new cases and legislative and regulatory developments in the past year that affect the interpretation of ERISA and Internal Revenue Code sections and regulations. The new material includes: The Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan [129 S. Ct. 865 (2009)], holding that a plan administrator is not required to honor waivers contained in external documents, such as divorce decrees and settlements, that conflict or otherwise do not comply with plan terms and procedures governing beneficiary designations The Supreme Court's decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn [128 S. Ct. 2342 (2008)], holding that, when a court reviews a denial of plan benefits, it should consider the conflict of interest that arises from the dual role of an entity as an ERISA plan administrator and payor of benefits as a factor in determining whether the plan administrator abused its discretion in denying the benefits Section 3001 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), or the "stimulus package," which provides for assistance with COBRA premium payments for terminated or laid-off workers who are eligible for COBRA continuation coverage Final PBGC regulations, implementing Section 506 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), which set forth disclosure requirements for distress terminations and plan terminations initiated by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) The proposed "401(k) Fair Disclosure for Retirement Security Act of 2009" (H.R. 1984), which would require greater disclosure of fees charged by plan service providers The Second Circuit's decision in Kickham Hanley P.C. v. Kodak Retirement Income Plan [558 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2009)], holding that ERISA's anti-alienation provision prevents any amount of undistributed benefits recovered or restored in administrative proceedings from being taken as attorneys' fees An exemption from truth-in-lending disclosure requirements for plan loans Coverage of recent cases from a number of circuit courts finding that former employees who have cashed out their benefits under a defined contributionplan have standing to bring an ERISA claim, arguing that a breach of fiduciary duty reduced the amount of their benefits The Ninth Circuit's ruling in Vaught v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp. Health Plan [546 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2009)] that issue exhaustion is not required under ERISA and, therefore, a plaintiff need not raise all reasons for challenging a denial of benefits in the initial appeal The Eighth Circuit's holding in Halbach v. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. [561 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2009)] that plan documents may incorporate other documents, in certain circumstances The Seventh Circuit's finding in Mondry v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. [557 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2009)] that a plan administrator who contracted with another company to perform claims administration could not argue that documents that the claims administrator refused to disclose were reasonably beyond the "control" of the plan administrator The Second Circuit's holding in In re Halpin [2009 WL 1272632 (2d Cir. May 11, 2009], citing the DOL position that employer contributions to a plan do not become plan assets until made, as opposed to when owed The Eighth Circuit's holding in Pichoff v. QHG of Springdale, Inc. [556 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2009)] that where a defendant retained no funds identifiable as belonging to the plaintiff, no restitution was available to the plaintiff, leaving him without a remedy