Adoption of: J.C.S., of: L.W.P.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the pension plan’s anti-cutback language offered more protection than the Act’s
• holding that the pension plan’s anti‐cutback language offered more protection than the Act’s
• “To achieve [actuarial] equivalence re- quires . . . convert[ing] the stream of expected future payments into a present value[.]”
• not crediting a participant's interpretation that makes a \section superfluous\
• “When a participant in a defined-benefit pension plan is given a choice between taking pension benefits as an annuity or in a lump sum, the lump sum must be so calculated as to be the actuarial equivalent of the annuity.”
• not crediting a participant’s interpretation that makes a “section superfluous”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).