Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Increased Flexibility for 401(k) Plan Sponsors
In the first half of this decade, a series of events wreaked havoc on pension plans. Enron and other major corporations collapsed with the result that employees and other investors lost billions of dollars in savings, including in many cases significant pension investments. Sept. 11 accelerated and deepened the fall of the financial markets. Lower securities prices, coupled with low interest rates, resulted in modest investment returns and increased funding obligations for sponsors of traditional defined benefit plans. In turn, major legacy air carriers and other historical industry leaders struggled (sometimes without success) to avoid bankruptcy. In response to these and other upheavals, Congress enacted the Pension Protection Act ('PPA') on Aug. 17, 2006, only three weeks after its introduction in the House of Representatives, in an effort to reform outdated aspects of federal pension laws and to provide greater stability and overall protection to pension plan members.
Pension Protection Act
Understandably, given its roots in the financial troubles that preceded its enactment, the PPA concentrated much of its attention on remedying shortfalls in employer funding of defined benefit pension plans. However, the PPA also acknowledged the growing significance of defined contribution plans (e.g., '401(k)' plans) as the primary ' and in many cases, the sole ' source of retirement savings for a growing number of Americans. Accordingly, the PPA also made significant changes affecting diversification rights, automatic enrollment, and default investment options under such plans. In particular, the PPA established exemptions for fiduciaries, so that they could more freely provide investment advice to plan participants who wield increasing control over their plan investments. This article summarizes those changes.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.