Section 112020 of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), House version, would expand the reach of the IRC § 4960 excise tax on compensation in excess of $1 million (equal to 21%, the...
Read this practice note discussing factoring transactions, the parties involved, and the reasons for factoring. This practice note specifically discusses the distinguishing features of advance and discount...
Land banking transactions are an alternative financing structure where the land banker (typically an investment group) purchases the land shortly before or soon after the homebuilder acquires it. The parties...
Don’t miss out on what’s trending in the deal market. Find out how dealmakers are navigating valuation uncertainties with increasingly nuanced adjustment provisions, from working capital metrics...
Check out this video discussing best practices for responding to FDA Form 483 inspectional observations. Watch now » Related Content Life Sciences FDA Matters Representation and Warranty Clause...
* 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+