Recent changes in the legislative and regulatory climate have made it possible and desirable to consider optimizing retirement plan contributions by combining defined benefit and defined contribution plans. But while combination plans can produce superior benefits, their designers must ensure that plans do not violate: the Internal Revenue Code rule that a plan qualified for favorable tax treatment must avoid discriminating in favor of highly compensated employees; or the requirement in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) that pension plans must not discriminate against employees on the basis of age. In Part One of this article, we introduce and compare some of these possibilities.

The work Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law tax professor Edward A. Zelinsky does telecommuting from his home in New Haven a couple days a week is equally, if not more, important to the work he does when physically present at the Manhattan law school, he insists. But that's hardly apparent in reading the New York Court of Appeals' Nov. 24 rejection of Zelinsky's constitutional challenge to the Empire State's tax system, which taxes the entirety of his income whether he worked for it in New York or back home in Connecticut.

Features

There's no relief in sight from rising health-care costs. Hewitt Associates, of Lincolnshire, IL, projects that health care costs will increase 15.4% this year, following an average rate hike last year of 13.7%. If this trend continues, Hewitt estimates, health coverage cost will double over the next 5 years. Law firms coast-to-coast therefore continue to search for their own magic bullets. While doing so, however, they're being careful not to shoot themselves in the foot. Firms see a strong benefits package as critical to retaining and recruiting employees, and therefore take a largely conservative approach to managing health-care costs - trying to maintain generous levels of coverage while minimizing the financial blow to employees.

In its continuing effort to respond to high profile fraudulent financial reporting and to strengthen safeguards against fraud and the misappropriation of funds, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has issued Statement on Auditing Standards 99: Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement. Generally known as SAS 99, the new standard imposes additional requirements on the audit process and applies to audits of 2003 financial statements for both public and private companies. As in-house corporate counsel, you can be affected by this new measure in several ways, most notably in the information you may be required to gather and the questions you may be expected to answer. In addition, certain information gathered under SAS 99 can help public companies meet requirements imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Approximately 3 years ago in <i>Danis v. USN Communications</i>, Magistrate Judge Schenkier stated: "At some point, a party and/or its attorneys must be held responsible for knowing what documents are discoverable and where to find them." He prefaced this statement by reasoning that we cannot create a loophole in the discovery rules by allowing counsel to argue: "Judge, we just didn't know those tapes existed." <BR>Case law in the past 3 years, most notably in <i>Zubulake v. UBS Warburg</i>, decision, has expanded a corporate counselor's Danis duty to "know thy e-data." <i>See also Zubulake v. UBS Warburg</i>. Counsel representing today's 21st century companies need to know more than simply where electronic evidence resides; they also have a duty to know if that data is accessible (<i>ie</i>, how easily it can be restored and produced) and how much the whole process is going to cost.

Features

Recent developments of interest to corporate counsel.

Features

The Employee Benefit Security Administration of the Department of Labor (DOL) has recently announced a more liberal view toward charging tax-qualified retirement plan expenses against the accounts of participants in 401(k), ESOP, and other defined contribution plans. This article provides a brief overview of the kinds of expenses that plans may pay and then explains how the new DOL guidance provides employers and plan sponsors with greater flexibility in allocating these expenses to participant accounts.

A very important lease provision, particularly from the tenant's perspective, is an effective subrogation waiver. The subrogation waiver essentially provides that in the event of a casualty that is caused by the negligence of one party to a lease, the negligent party is nonetheless not liable for the resulting damage to the extent that the damage is either covered by applicable insurance proceeds or to the extent it would have been covered by insurance proceeds had the other party to the lease maintained the insurance as required under the lease. Subrogation waivers provide, in effect, that both parties to the lease benefit from the casualty insurance maintained by either party. This concept is especially fair to the tenant in net lease situations where the tenant pays its pro rata share of the landlord's casualty insurance. Landlords also benefit from a mutual subrogation waiver to the extent that the tenant's leasehold improvements, fixtures, and personal property are damaged or destroyed due to the landlord's negligence.