ERISA plaintiff need not exhaust remedies 
Published: February 1, 2013
Tags: ERISA, retirement benefits
An ERISA plaintiff was not required to exhaust her administrative remedies in order to pursue a lawsuit for the alleged wrongful reduction of her future early retirement benefits, the 2nd Circuit has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
Military retiree must compensate ex-wife
Published: August 29, 2012
Tags: retirement benefits
A military retiree was required to make his ex-wife whole to the extent his decision to receive a tax benefit for disabled veterans effectively eliminated her share of his retirement benefits, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.
Marital share of soldier’s retirement miscalculated
Published: April 16, 2012
Tags: divorce, property division, retirement benefits
The marital share of a divorced husband’s military pension should have been based on the number of service “points” earned during the marriage rather than the man’s time in the military during that period, Maine’s highest court has ruled in reversing judgment.
Energy company settles retiree lawsuit for $30 million
Published: May 18, 2011
Tags: class action, retirement benefits, South Carolina
Duke Energy will pay $30 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over changes to its retirement plan.
ERISA
By:
Correy Stephenson
Published: June 28, 2010
Tags: cash balance pension plan, ERISA, retirement benefits
Does a U.S. District Court have the authority to require employees’ prior benefit provisions to be reinstated after finding that the employer violated the advance notice of reduction requirement of ERISA? Does the court have the authority to require at least “comparable” future benefits to be provided based on a finding that participants were promised “comparable” or “larger” future retirement benefits?
Justices to hear ERISA case
By:
Correy Stephenson
Published: June 28, 2010
Tags: cash balance pension plan, ERISA, retirement benefits
Does a U.S. District Court have the authority to require employees’ prior benefit provisions to be reinstated after finding that the employer violated the advance notice of reduction requirement of ERISA? And does the court have the authority to require at least “comparable” future benefits to be provided based on a finding that participants were promised “comparable” or “larger” future retirement benefits?
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer these questions.
