Talk:Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974/Archives/2012

Sentence fragment

Dear fellow editors: The following sentence fragment was removed from the main article on 3 Feb. 2006. Perhaps someone can look up the case, rewrite and re-insert the material.

In In re Barnes 264 BR 415(BRD.E.D.Mich. 2001) bankruptcy court Chief Judge (merely an article I judge, not a life tenure full Article II judge) Arthur J. Spector held that

Yours, Famspear 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-alienation clauses

Dear fellow editors:

On 3 February 2006 I removed the following language from the article:

Without the protection of the anti-alienation provsion [sic] of ERISA plans, judges would have to look to Section 541(c)(2) to exclude such assets from the bankruptcy estate as in Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753 (1992).

The problem with the excised language is that the key ruling by the Court in that case was that an anti-alienation provision in an ERISA-qualified pension plan constitutes a restriction on transfer that is enforceable under "applicable nonbankruptcy law," for purposes of the section 541(c)(2) exclusion of property from the debtor's bankruptcy estate. The case was specifically about section 541(c)(2) and ERISA anti-alienation clauses. This means that if your plan does not have an anti-alienation provision (whether ERISA-related or not), Patterson v. Shumate and 541(c)(2) simply won't help you. You have to have an anti-alienation provision in the plan in order for Patterson to apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Famspear (talk • contribs) on 3 February 2006.

Plan Termination article

I think we need a separate article to deal with this and we can link both the ERISA and the PBGC article's termination section to it. I will look for my study note written by former PBGC head Roh Gebhardsbauer.John wesley 19:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Litigation

I just came across an ALR Fed article, fun reading. Maybe I can boil it down.John wesley 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs major work

This article is a real mess. The section titled "preemption debate" confuses preemption with ERISA remedies, two completely different (though related) issues. I'll try to do some work on this when I have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentakis (talk • contribs) on 25 August 2006.

Needs substantial rewrite for purposes of accuracy and clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merck100 (talk • contribs) on 21 January 2007.

Pre-emption must come after a section discussing ERISA remedies. According to the High Court, ERISA has a highly reticulated system of remedies and nothing else is allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.52 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Plan termination is a stub that largely repeats the information in Title IV: Plan Termination Insurance of this article. I propose merging whatever is of value from that article into this one. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This was done long ago. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

"private industry and provides for extensive rules on the federal income tax effects of transactions associated with employee benefit plans."

Hmmm.... cui bono? This can be translated into the ruling classes manouvering to extract and exploit more taxes from the working masses to support their immense wealth so it contradicts the next sentence....

"ERISA was enacted to protect the interests of employee benefit plan participants and their beneficiaries by:" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)