Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Retirement Security Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Legislation

Statutory interpretation

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Retirement Security Law

Federal Common Law And Gaps In Federal Statutes: The Case Of Erisa Plan Limitation Periods For Section 502(A)(1)(B) Actions, Jim Greiner Nov 1994

Federal Common Law And Gaps In Federal Statutes: The Case Of Erisa Plan Limitation Periods For Section 502(A)(1)(B) Actions, Jim Greiner

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that federal courts should adopt a uniform national rule that upholds plan provisions modifying the limitation period for a section 502(a)(l)(B) action. Part I examines the reasoning of those courts that have borrowed state law to determine the validity of modifications of the limitation period applicable to actions arising under BRISA section 502(a)(l)(B) and under other federal statutes. Part I argues that those courts may have incorrectly characterized the validity of plan limitation periods as an issue of limitation law. As a consequence of this characterization, those courts have followed the ...


Employer Recapture Of Erisa Contributions Made By Mistake: A Federal Common Law Remedy To Prevent Unjust Enrichment, J. Daniel Plants Jun 1991

Employer Recapture Of Erisa Contributions Made By Mistake: A Federal Common Law Remedy To Prevent Unjust Enrichment, J. Daniel Plants

Michigan Law Review

This Note investigates more fully the policies animating ERISA in order to ascribe an appropriate construction to the mistaken contribution section. Part I analyzes the Ninth Circuit's anomalous implied cause of action theory. Searching the legislative history as well as ERISA's language and structure, this Part finds lacking the requisite expression of congressional intent to support a statutorily implied remedy. As an alternative, Part II explores the appropriateness of common law relief. Part II defends the creation of common law relief by the federal courts as consistent with the direct and indirect evidence suggesting that Congress envisioned judicial ...


Erisa Preemption: Judicial Flexibility And Statutory Rigidity, Leon E. Irish, Harrison J. Cohen Oct 1985

Erisa Preemption: Judicial Flexibility And Statutory Rigidity, Leon E. Irish, Harrison J. Cohen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article attempts to describe the ways in which, and the reasons why section 514(a) has caused the courts and Congress so much difficulty. Part I reviews the legislative history of section 514(a), with emphasis on the ambivalence Congress has shown toward its 1974 draftsmanship. Part II attempts to provide a coherent description of the case law that has developed under section 514(a). Part III completes the legislative history by examining the two instances in which experience compelled Congress to revise section 514. Finally, Part IV discusses examples of problems courts have faced when crafting a federal ...


Erisa: To Sue Or Not To Sue-A Question Of Statutory Standing, Constance L. Bauer Oct 1985

Erisa: To Sue Or Not To Sue-A Question Of Statutory Standing, Constance L. Bauer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note examines the conflicting authority regarding the scope of section 502(a) of ERISA. There is a fundamental split among the United States Courts of Appeals concerning whether parties not specifically enumerated in section 502(a) have standing to bring civil actions to enforce ERISA's provisions. The Ninth Circuit has held consistently that non-enumerated parties are entitled to sue under ERISA. The Second Circuit, however, repeatedly has held that parties not explicitly specified in section 502(a). do not have standing to bring an action under the Act. This Note addresses the question of whether employers and pension ...