Rahm v. Halpin

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the parties were “free to contractually provide for some other result” that would have rendered the assets in question plan assets, but had not done so
• holding that, “in the absence of provisions to the contrary in the relevant plan documents, unpaid contributions are not assets of the plan”
• “[A]s a general rule, undefined statutory terms should be construed in accordance with their common-law meaning.”
• “In the absence of a formal rule or regulation, the Department has informally advised that ‘the assets of a plan generally are to be identified on the basis of ordinary notions of property rights under non-ERISA law.’” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).