25 Cited authorities

  1. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen

    514 U.S. 73 (1995)   Cited 686 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a clause reserving the company's right "at any time to amend the plan" meets the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1102(b)
  2. LC Capital Partners, LP v. Frontier Insurance Group, Inc.

    318 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 197 times
    Holding that when the relevant facts "can be gleaned from the complaint and papers ... integral to the complaint, resolution of the issue on a motion to dismiss is appropriate"
  3. Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co.

    816 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 264 times
    Holding that fraudulent concealment tolling applies where the defendant's conduct "lead a reasonable person to believe that he did not have a claim for relief"
  4. Forbes v. Eagleson

    228 F.3d 471 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 180 times
    Holding that for equitable tolling to apply, the plaintiff must show active misleading . . . and must further show that he exercised reasonable diligence" (citing Oshiver, 38 F.3d at 1391 n.10)
  5. Frommert v. Conkright

    433 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 151 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Administrator's attempt to apply the “phantom account” to respondents violated two other ERISA provisions: 29 U.S.C. § 1054(h)'s notice requirement and § 1054(g)'s prohibition on retroactive benefit cutbacks
  6. Miller v. Fortis Benefits

    475 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 137 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he beneficiary should exercise reasonable diligence to ensure the accuracy of his award," and "requir[ing] beneficiaries to safeguard those rights upon a denial of benefits"
  7. Romero v. Allstate Corp.

    404 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 135 times
    Holding that claims arising under Section 204(h) accrue when a plaintiff “knew or should have known that the amendment has brought about a clear repudiation of certain rights that [the plaintiff] believe [he] had under the plan.”
  8. Esden v. Bank of Boston

    229 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 124 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Notice is "entitled to deference, regardless of its form of publication"
  9. Pocahontas Supreme Coal Co. v. Bethlehem Steel

    828 F.2d 211 (4th Cir. 1987)   Cited 167 times
    Holding no fraudulent concealment where antitrust action alleged interrelationships between defendant companies, and those interrelationships were readily discoverable on consultation of public mining records
  10. Register v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

    477 F.3d 56 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an SPD did not improperly fail to notify participants that their cash balance plan was age-discriminatory when the plan was not, in fact, age-discriminatory
  11. Section 1002 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 1002   Cited 11,076 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ERISA is a federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans
  12. Section 1102 - Establishment of plan

    29 U.S.C. § 1102   Cited 1,624 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Granting administrator, as “named fiduciary,” the “authority to control and manage the operation and administration of the plan”
  13. Section 1054 - Benefit accrual requirements

    29 U.S.C. § 1054   Cited 756 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Entitling participants to benefits "without regard to amendment" in case of an "egregious failure"
  14. Section 411 - Minimum vesting standards

    26 U.S.C. § 411   Cited 488 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Defining "accrued benefit"
  15. Section 417 - Definitions and special rules for purposes of minimum survivor annuity requirements

    26 U.S.C. § 417   Cited 129 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Addressing rules for cash-outs of minimum survivor annuities
  16. Section 1.401-1 - Qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans

    26 C.F.R. § 1.401-1   Cited 48 times
    Restating anti-alienation requirement
  17. Section 54.4980F-1 - Notice requirements for certain pension plan amendments significantly reducing the rate of future benefit accrual

    26 C.F.R. § 54.4980F-1   Cited 3 times

    The following questions and answers concern the notification requirements imposed by 4980F of the Internal Revenue Code and section 204(h) of ERISA relating to a plan amendment of an applicable pension plan that significantly reduces the rate of future benefit accrual or that eliminates or significantly reduces an early retirement benefit or retirement-type subsidy. List of Questions Q-1. What are the notice requirements of section 4980F(e) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 204(h) of ERISA