GM Retirees Sue over Executive Retirement Plan Benefits


 Executives in Chicago and the Midwest may be excited to hear about all the General Motors executives suing to recover executive retirement plan benefits from a previously bankrupt employer. Often, when executives have such retirement plans, commonly referred to as SERPs (or "top hats"), the participants can expect to receive little or nothing if the employer becomes insolvent. That is because ERISA § 201(2) top hat plans are exempt from ERISA's funding, vesting, and fiduciary responsibility protections, though are still enforceable as ERISA plans. https://askcompetentlawyer.com/civil-litigation/ The General Motors that emerged from bankruptcy assumed much of the pre-bankrupt retirement plan obligations, but the credit agreement with the United States Treasury required that certain obligations, including pension obligations, be reduced.

Like most executives and managers who have such non-qualified deferred compensation or excess benefit plans (ERISA § 3(36)), the GM executives appear to also have been participants in qualified retirement plans at GM, a defined benefit pension plan and a defined contribution stock bonus plan. On Monday, approximately 112 former executives (or their beneficiaries or alternate payees pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order) sued GM under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claiming a denial of benefits due. The dispute between the executives and GM appears to be over interpretation of a provision in the plan which allows for reducing the SERP benefits by two thirds if benefits exceed $100,000 per year on a single life annuity basis.

The retirees argue that the reduction only applies if he benefits of the SERP exceed $100,000 per year. Meanwhile, GM argues the SERP benefits are reduced when benefits under the qualified retirement plan and the SERP combined exceed $100,000 per year. The language over which the parties dicker states: "for executive retirees who have a combined tax-qualified SRP plus non-qualified benefit under this Plan in excess of $100,000 per annum on a life annuity basis, the amount of benefits under this Plan over the combined $100,000 per annum threshold shall be reduced by 2/3rds." This phrase is certainly open to more than one interpretation, though the question will be whether the administrator's interpretation was reasonable. Also, the use of "combined" just before the second reference to $100,000 appears to present a hurdle to the retirees they did not appear to argue how they clear in any of the internal appeals.

The retirees' interpretation of the plan may very well be the only reasonable interpretation when read in conjunction with other portions of the plan document, in light of amendments to the plan, or pursuant to prior Executive Compensation Committee interpretations of the clause. However, several critical pages of the plan document were omitted from that which was filed, and neither of the other categories of information were attached to the complaint, so we will have to wait to see the outcome! If you have questions about your executive retirement plan, call a lawyer who concentrates in ERISA today.

Комментарии

Отправить комментарий

Популярные сообщения из этого блога

Why Your Executive Employment Agreement May Reference Dodd-Frank Clawback Policy

Изображение
 Executives in Chicago may be puzzled to begin seeing vague references to new compensation clawback policies in their executive employment agreements. Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act requires, as a condition of the employer's securities being listed on a national securities exchange or association (such as NYSE, NASDAQ, etc.), if the employer must restate any financial statements because of "material noncompliance" with the securities laws, then the issuer will recoup from any current or former executive officer during the 3 years preceding the date the employer had to restate those financial statements all amounts paid in incentive based compensation that exceeds what would have been paid under the restated financials. Executive Compensation lawyers who advise employers mostly agree the executive employment agreements need to mention the clawback policy. However, the employers' lawyers advise to avoid being specific about the terms of the clawba
Далее...

Don't Forget to Update Your Beneficiary Designations on Employer Sponsored Retirement or Life Insurance Plans

Изображение
  Executives and employees participating in employee benefit plans in Chicago received a reminder this week about why it is important to keep track of your benefit plans' beneficiary designations, and update those designations when appropriate. Many people may think they can enter into binding agreements with others, such as family members or former spouses, about entitlement to or waiver of benefits under an employee benefit plan, like a pension or life insurance. Lawyer office in Ohio . However, if the plan is one covered by ERISA, those agreements, even if part of an agreed court order, will have no bearing on what the benefit plan administrator does with any proceeds if inconsistent with the beneficiary designation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterated this point in Jackman Financial Corp. v. Humana Insurance Co., No. 10-2112, Slip Op. (7th Cir. May 31, 2011). In that case, Mr. Torrence was a participant in a group term life insurance policy of
Далее...

Courts Still at Odds over What Language Grants Discretion to an ERISA Plan Administrator

Изображение
  Employees in Chicago that are participants in any employee benefit plans should pay attention to the growing divide among Courts of Appeals over whether "satisfactory to us" is language in a plan sufficient to vest the plan administrator with discretion to interpret plan terms and make benefit determinations. When the administrator has such discretion, a court reviewing the administrator's decision will do so under an abuse of discretion standard--whether the decision was reasonable, not whether it was right. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the ranks of courts in holding such language requiring a participant to provide proof of a loss "satisfactory to us" does not confer discretion on the administrator of the plan. Viera v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 10-22810, Slip Op. at 19 (3d Cir. June 10, 2011). Lawyer office in Ohio . The Third Circuit joined the ranks of the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding
Далее...