The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), recently passed by the U.S. House, introduces major changes to the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) regime that could impact multinational corporations...
Class B malls have struggled in recent years with the decrease in mall shoppers and the departure of anchor tenants. Developers and owners are revitalizing Class B malls and filling vacancies by introducing...
Joint ventures bring together two or more parties to collaborate on a specific business opportunity. They may be structured as contractual arrangements, new entity formations, or investments in an existing...
This practice note covers how to respond to a complete response letter issued by the FDA as part of the agency’s new drug application (NDA) or biologics license application (BLA) process. Read...
Want to know how to balance the benefits of artificial intelligence tools against associated risks to employee privacy? Read our practice note, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Employee Privacy , by Damon...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
It’s been more than 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, which significantly impacted ERISA benefits litigation by applying a standard of review for courts faced with review of an ERISA benefits claim determination. Before Firestone, in most instances, courts reviewing benefit determinations would apply a de novo review standard. This means that an adverse claim is reviewed by a court without being predisposed to either side. The Firestone court held that the abuse of discretion standard (also referred to as the arbitrary and capricious review standard) would apply where the benefit plan contained language sufficient to authorize the party deciding the claim to interpret the plan (or insurance policy) and render benefit determinations. Where the language is used, benefit claimants (usually) face the challenge of proving to the reviewing court that a benefit denial was arbitrary and capricious. Quite a hurdle! Be sure your plans/policies include the requisite language.
Read now »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE CUSTOMER EMAIL EDITION ON THE WEB
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+