|
FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS
new United States pension laws
Widely hailed as the most sweeping pension-related legislation passed in the United States since the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 aims to require companies to more fully fund their pension plans, to strengthen the U.S. federal insurance program that covers partial benefits for retirees whose defined benefit plans fail, and to expand worker retirement savings options. Heidi Winzeler examines the key points of the legislation and highlights changes that are of interest to Canadian companies.
CLASS ACTIONS
proper forum for class action
Tyrone Medley discusses the recent decision in Lieberman v. Business Development Bank of Canada in which retired members of the Business Development Bank of Canada (the “Bank”) sought certification for a class action in British Columbia, alleging that the Bank breached its fiduciary duties in the administration of the federally registered pension plan. The Bank argued that the B.C. Court should decline jurisdiction in favour of Quebec, since the plan was administered in Quebec and all assets were held in Quebec, so if any breaches of fiduciary duty occurred, it was in Quebec. The Court refused to move the case.
BOOK REVIEW (PENSION LAW)
the paradox of pension law
John Kleefeld provides a review of one of the newest and most comprehensive books about pension law. Pension Law, by Ari N. Kaplan, is really the first Canadian textbook about the area and manages to guide and instruct the reader, easily moving from the general to the specific and back again. The book provides an even-handed discussion of the paradox of pension law: that it aims to uphold both private law rights and duties of contracting parties while giving effect to public policy objectives.
SURPLUS
surplus entitlement uncertainty
Stephanie Kauffman discusses the interesting issue raised in the case of Schering Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services): where an employer is entitled to surplus on plan termination, the employer may choose to leave the partial wind-up surplus in the plan, and need not distribute the partial wind-up surplus. The Tribunal found that the employer could not demonstrate a clear entitlement to the surplus, so it must be distributed.
|
|
Kenneth E. Burns
Lawson Lundell LLP
Dona L. Campbell
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
Peggy A. McCallum
Fasken Martineau
DuMoulin LLP
Jeffrey P. Sommers
Blake, Cassels &
Graydon LLP
Michael Wolpert
Osler, Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP
Hugh Wright
McInnes CoopeR |