-
1. SUMMARY
On business transfers there is a risk that where the seller provides a company sponsored "occupational" pension scheme which allows benef...
-
Three US Courts of Appeals have interpreted the effect of Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act section 204(g) on early retirement benefits differently. Section 204(g) prohibits plan modifications that reduce accrued benefits. One court ruled that a successor employer was still liable to employees retiring early under the prior employer's plan even though benefits had not accrued when the company was sold. The other two courts found that denying the benefits did not modify the plan. One court stated that benefits had not accrued, and the other court found that the plan obligations did not transfer to the successor employer.
-
This rule amends Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans by substituting a new table for determining expected retirement ages for participants in pension plans undergoing distress or involuntary termination with valuation dates falling in 2012. This table is needed in order to compute the value of early retirement benefits and, thus, the total value of benefits under a plan.
-
Workers are not instantly eligible for Social Security retirement benefits on their 62nd birthdays, nor can they receive benefits in the month they turn 62. This note discusses how well researchers can do using data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to identify respondents old enough to receive and report early Social Security retirement benefits. It shows that only some workers aged 62 at the time of an HRS interview will be "62 enough" to have received a Social Security benefit and reported it in the survey.
-
MIAMI - Paul Skidmore's office is shuttered, his job gone, his 18- month job search fruitless and his unemployment benefits exhausted. So at 63, he plans to file this week for Social Security benefits, three years earlier than planned.
All I want to do is work," said Skidmore, of Finksburg, Md., who was an insurance claims adjuster for 37 years before his company downsized and closed his office last year. "And nobody will hire me.
-
By John J. Papadakis and Martin Scott
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 ("TUPE"), which transpose the...
-
An employee could not claim a portion of his lump-sum retirement benefits was a severance payment entitled to priority status in his employer's bankruptcy case, the 2nd Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.
The employee worked as a manager for Bethlehem Steel until he was fired during the pendency of the company's Chapter 11 case. Under the terms of his retirement plan, the employee was entitled to a lump-sum payment of accrued benefits because he was fired without cause and within five years of a change in control of his employer. Accordingly, the employee asserted a claim in Bethlehem Steel's bankruptcy case for $1.49 million.
-
(This article originally ran in the St. Louis Daily Record, St. Louis, MO, another Dolan Media publication.)
Did he quit, or was he fired? That was the question facing the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, which determined that a Proctor & Gamble employee who voluntarily took an early-retirement package could not also receive unemployment benefits.
-
Illinois House leaders should force a look at public teacher retirement packages by not extending their Early Retirement Option - - at least for a few months.
The Senate has already approved a five-year extension of the program that is more than two decades old and allows teachers to retire early, sometimes with inflated pensions thanks to the generosity of local school boards.
-
Did he quit, or was he fired? That was the question facing the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, which determined that a Proctor & Gamble employee who voluntarily took an early-retirement package could not also receive unemployment benefits.
There is no evidence that P&G threatened involuntary layoffs, intended to reduce its work force by any certain number involuntarily, or otherwise pressured Shields or other employees to request or accept the offer of separation, wrote the court, reversing the Division of Employment Security's decision to grant the former employee unemployment benefits.