Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that where \the very existence of damages\ is in dispute, equitable principles do not compel a damages award
• stating that extracontrac-tual damages for purposes of section 1132(a)(1)(B) and monetary damages for purposes of section 1132(a)(3) are not cognizable claims under ERISA
• noting that top hat plans are governed by “breach of contract principles, applied as a matter of federal common law”
• noting that a pension plan “constitutes an offer that the employee, by participating in the plan, electing a distributive scheme, and serving the employer for the requisite number of years, accepts by performance”
• observing that a plan administer must unambiguously follow a plan’s provisions as written
• finding a “top hat” plan unfunded despite the employer’s use of “shadow” or “tracking” accounts to identify compensation which was deferred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).