Comparison of ERISA Pension and State Pension Protections

Comparison of ERISA Pension and State Pension Protections: "COMPARISON OF ERISA AND STATE PENSION PROTECTION PROVISIONS

By: Laura Jordan, Research Attorney

You asked whether any state has adopted Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) pension fund mismanagement protections. You also asked for a comparison of the ERISA provisions that are designed to protect private-sector employees from pension plan mismanagement with state law provisions designed to protect public pension plans from mismanagement by the state treasurer.
SUMMARY
State and local governments are exempt from ERISA. We contacted the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, the Employee Benefits Research Institute, the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, and the State and Local Pension Exchange website. These sources were unaware of any state that had directly adopted ERISA provisions. However, because ERISA and state law protections both stem from common law fiduciary and trust principles, many public pension protections are similar to those found in ERISA.
The rules described in this summary are explained in detail below. We simplified the ERISA rules for this report because particular conditions or exemptions apply to most of them. Some ERISA rules are not explained because they are not relevant in comparing ERISA and state mismanagement protections (e.g., rules concerning investment in employer-owned real property or securities and corporate control contests).
The public pension funds that this report refers to and that the treasurer oversees include the Connecticut Municipal Employees' Retirement Fund (A and B); the Soldiers', Sailors', and Marines' Fund; the State's Attorney Retirement Fund; the Teachers' Annuity Fund; the Teachers' Pension Fund; the Teachers' Survivors"

Finally, ERISA places extensive reporting requirements on private-sector employers. State law requires the Advisory Committee to annually report to the governor, General Assembly, and plan beneficiaries on public pension security investments.
For your further information, we have attached a copy of the Uniform Management of Public Employee Retirement Systems Act that the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws recently approved and an OLR summary of the Act. The Act may be found at www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/umpers97.htm. The OLR summary is available at www.cgalites.state.ct.us/p599/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-0769.htm.

Casemaker - NC - Case Law - Search - Result

Casemaker - NC - Case Law - Search - Result: "Federal courts have consistently held that there is no basis to find that the provisions of section 401 of the IRC -- which relate solely to the criteria for tax qualification under the Internal Revenue Code -- are imposed on pension plans by the substantive terms of ERISA. See Reklau v. Merchants Nat. Corp., 808 F.2d 628, 631 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1049, 95 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1987); Cowan v. Keystone Emp. Profit Sharing Fund, 586 F.2d 888, 890 n.3 (1st Cir. 1978) ('This section [§ 401 of the I.R.C.] does not appear to create any substantive rights that a beneficiary of a qualified retirement trust can enforce.'); Wiesner v. Romo Paper Products Corp., Etc., 514 F. Supp. 289, 291 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) ('The sections relied on, 26 U.S.C. §§ 401, 404 and 503, do not create a substantive right that a beneficiary, participant, or fiduciary could enforce.'); Vermeulen v. Cent. States, Southeast and Southwest, 490 F. Supp. 234, 237 n.6 (M.D.N.C. 1980) ('This court agrees with the First Circuit's holding in Cowan v. Keystone Employees Profit Sharing Fund, 586 F.2d 888, 890 n.3 (1st Cir. 1978).'). While all of these federal cases deal with attempts to use provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as the basis for actions against retirement plans which are covered by ERISA, we find no reason why a different rule should apply in the context of an attempt to use section 401 of the IRC as the basis of an implied private cause of action against a government retirement plan that is exempt from ERISA. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact and plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

Casemaker - NC - Case Law - Search - Result

Casemaker - NC - Case Law - Search - Result: "170 N.C. App. 638
JARVIS v. STEWART
613 S.E.2d 293


170 N.C. App. 638 (2005)
JARVIS v. STEWART
613 S.E.2d 293
RICHARD JARVIS, PLAINTIFF
v.
NATHANIEL M. STEWART & STEWART FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., DEFENDANTS
No. COA04-713.
North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Filed June 7, 2005
Employer and Employee- disability provisions-state action-no preemption
Plaintiff's state action against his employer's financial advisor should not have been dismissed as preempted by federal ERISA legislation where none of plaintiff's claims raised any of the concerns Congress sought to address by the ERISA. These claims arose from the difference between the disability benefits plaintiff received and representations made to him; among other things, these claims involved defendants who are not plan administrators or fiduciaries.
Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 19 March 2004 by Judge W. David Lee in Cabarrus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 February 2005.
Browne, Flebotte, Wilson, Horn & Webb, PLLC, by Martin J. Horn and Adam A. Smith, for plaintiff-appellant.
Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, L.L.P., by David N. Allen and Jennifer E. Marsh, for defendants-appellees.
JACKSON, Judge.
Richard Jarvis, ('plaintiff') appeals an order entered 19 March 2004 in Cabarrus County Superior Court dismissing, with prejudice as to further state proceedings, his complaint alleging breach of contract; detrimental reliance; negligence; negligent misrepresentation; and unfair or deceptive trade practices.
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on 11 June 2003 and his first amended complaint and motion to amend complaint on 20 January 2004. The moti"

Casemaker - NC - Case Law - Search - Result

Casemaker - NC - Case Law - Search - Result: "137 N.C. App. 653
Patterson v. Patterson
529 S.E.2d 484


KARL DAVID PATTERSON, By and Through His Administrator, Miller Jordan, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN DURDLE PATTERSON, Defendant, v. PAULA S. PATTERSON, Intervenor and Third-Party Defendant, and TEACHERS INSURANCE ANNUITY ASSOCIATION - COLLEGE RETIREMENT EQUITIES FUND, Third-Party Defendant.
NO. COA 99-70
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
(Filed May 2, 2000)
KARL DAVID PATTERSON, By and Through His Administrator, Miller Jordan, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN DURDLE PATTERSON, Defendant,
v.
PAULA S. PATTERSON, Intervenor and Third-Party Defendant, and TEACHERS INSURANCE ANNUITY ASSOCIATION - COLLEGE RETIREMENT EQUITIES FUND, Third-Party Defendant.
Appeal by intervenor from order entered 16 October 1998 by Judge William G. Jones in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 November 1999.
Essex, Richards, Morris, Jordan & Matus, P.A., by G. Miller Jordan, for plaintiff-appellee Karl D. Patterson. No brief filed.
James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Richard A. Elkins and Paul P. Browne, for defendant-appellee Carolyn D. Patterson.
Odom & Groves, P.C., by Thomas L. Odom, Jr., for intervenor and third-party defendant-appellant Paula S. Patterson.
Cansler, Lockhart, Campbell, Evans, Bryant & Garlitz, P.A., by George K. Evans, Jr., for third-party defendant-appellee Teachers Insurance Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fund. No brief filed.
JOHN, Judge.
Intervenor and third-party defendant Paula S. Patterson (Paula) appeals the trial court's order denying her motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment and granting defendant's motion f"

Comparison of 457(b) Plans, 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, and Deemed IRAs

Comparison of 457(b) Plans, 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, and Deemed IRAs: "Comparison of 457(b) Plans, 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, and Deemed IRAs
Printer-friendly version Send to a friend
Carol V. Calhoun, Shareholder
Calhoun Law Group, P.C.
9112 Lindale Drive
Bethesda, MD 20817-3441
Office Phone: (202) 441-5592
Telefax: (301) 564-1941
E-mail: Click here to send e-mail.



The attractiveness of a 457(b) plan as compared with a 403(b) plan or a 401(k) plan may vary greatly depending on the circumstances. For example, a state or local governmental entity other than a public school or university may need to have a 457(b) plan, because it cannot normally have either of the other types of plans. A private university that is tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code ('I.R.C.') § 501(c)(3) but maintains a health maintenance organization that is tax-exempt under I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) and/or taxable research subsidiaries may prefer a 401(k) plan, so that it can cover all employees under the same plan. A private school that does not have affiliates, and wants to provide only for salary reduction contributions, may find that a 403(b) plan gives it the greatest ability to cover rank-and-file employees while minimizing administrative requirements. A public or private nonprofit school or university that maintains a qualified defined contribution plan may want to have a separate 403(b) plan as well, since it need not combine 403(b) contributions with contributions to the school or university's qualified plans in applying the I.R.C. § 415(c) limits.
With the passage of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 ('EGTRRA'), under which 457(b) plan defe"

Church Plans - BenefitsLink Message Boards

Church Plans - BenefitsLink Message Boards: "For church plans exempt from ERISA, who oversees the actions of fiduciaries? Who do participants contact if there are fiduciary violations in the operation of the Plan?


Danny Miller
View Member Profile Aug 27 2002, 02:21 PM Post #2


Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 47
Joined: 11-August 98
Member No.: 359



In the absence of ERISA coverage, state fiduciary laws govern the obligations fiduciaries owe church plans. There is thus no one regulatory authority to which participants can look, if that is your question. If a participant believes there has been a fiduciary breach, that issue would have to be analyzed under applicable state law, and then the participant could, if there is in fact a fiduciary breach, pursue that claim in the appropriate judicial forum (in the absence of a state regulatory agency that might review, or provisions in the plan document for resolving, such a claim). Let me know if I have not correctly understood your question.


--------------------

Danny Miller
Conner & Winters
1627 I St. NW
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006

202-887-5711"

church retirement plans governing law - Google Search

church retirement plans governing law - Google Search: "Using Church Plan Status to Enhance Your Employee Benefits James T ...File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML
In fact, under the law, the retirement plan of a service ministry associated ... are appointed by the church's governing board or by officials of a church. ..."