|
Library/File Location
|
MATBEN/EC2084
|
|
Source Selection Location
|
/Area of Law - By Topic/Financial Crisis Litigation/Emerging Issues Analysis/Emerging Issues - Employment/Emerging Issues/Pensions & Benefits
/Area of Law - By Topic/Labor & Employment/Emerging Issues/Pensions & Benefits
/Area of Law - By Topic/Municipal Government/Emerging Issues/Labor & Employment/Emerging Issues/Pensions & Benefits
|
|
Coverage
|
The most current data available.
|
|
Frequency of Update
|
One time only
|
Online
Availability
|
Updated regularly - Atypical update schedule/as received from the publisher
|
|
Publisher
|
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
|
|
Data Format
|
Full-text
|
|
Description
|
Do cash balance plans inherently violate ERISA @ 204(b)(1)(H)(i), which prohibits defined benefit plans from ceasing, or reducing the rate of, an employee's "benefit accrual" because of the attainment of any age? Although the Pension Protection Act of 2006 clarified that the basic cash balance plan design is not age-discriminatory, the Act's effect on cash balance plans is entirely prospective, leaving the courts to sort out what has happened in the past. After clearly explaining the nature of cash balance plans and how they combine features of both defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans, David L. Bacon and Nicholas S. Curabba describe the controversy surrounding the hybrid nature of cash balance plans and the reasoning courts have used to decide related issues.
The ($) indicates that transactional charges may apply to access this Expert Commentary.
|
|
Regions of Coverage
|
/Region of Coverage/United States
/Region of Coverage/North America/United States
|
|
Publication Type
|
/Source Type/Treatises & Analytical Material
|
|
Legal
|
/Legal/Labor & Employment Law
/Legal/Pension & Benefits Law
|
|
Premier Date
|
January 09, 2008
|
