Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Much of the federal litigation brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) involves efforts by the beneficiaries of ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans to overturn benefits decisions of the plans' administrators. One recent study found that 65% of ERISA lawsuits in the federal court system involve claims of interference with plan benefits. Pension Governance, Inc. and the Michel-Shaked Group, ERISA Litigation Study (2009), available at www.pensionlitigationdata.com/news.php.
The standard of review that a court applies to such benefit decisions can have a significant impact on the beneficiary's chances of success in the lawsuit. If the court reviews the decision de novo, then it may effectively ignore the interpretation of the ERISA plan performed by the plan administrator and independently review the plan in order to make a benefits determination. See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 210 (2004). At the other end of the spectrum of review standards, if the reviewing judge is compelled to apply a deferential standard of review to the decision of the plan administrator, then the judge is restricted to reviewing the decision for an abuse of discretion, and must uphold any reasonable interpretation of the ERISA plan offered by the plan administrator. McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir. 2008).
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.