29 U.S.C. § 1051

Coverage

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

This part shall apply to any employee benefit plan described in section 1003(a) of this title (and not exempted under section 1003(b) of this title) other than—(1) an employee welfare benefit plan;(2) a plan which is unfunded and is maintained by an employer primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees;(3)(A) a plan established and maintained by a society, order, or association described in section 501(c)(8) or (9) of title 26, if no part of the contributions to or under such plan are made by employers of participants in such plan, or(B) a trust described in section 501(c)(18) of title 26;(4) a plan which is established and maintained by a labor organization described in section 501(c)(5) of title 26 and which does not at any time after September 2, 1974, provide for employer contributions;(5) any agreement providing payments to a retired partner or a deceased partner’s successor in interest, as described in section 736 of title 26;(6) an individual retirement account or annuity described in section 408 of title 26, or a retirement bond described in section 409 of title 26 (as effective for obligations issued before January 1, 1984);(7) an excess benefit plan; or(8) any plan, fund or program under which an employer, all of whose stock is directly or indirectly owned by employees, former employees or their beneficiaries, proposes through an unfunded arrangement to compensate retired employees for benefits which were forfeited by such employees under a pension plan maintained by a former employer prior to the date such pension plan became subject to this chapter.(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, § 201, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 852; Pub. L. 96–364, title IV, § 411(a), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1308; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §§ 7891(a)(1), 7894(c)(1)(A), (11)(A), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2445, 2448, 2449.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 409 of title 26, referred to in par. (6), means section 409 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, prior to its repeal by Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, § 491(b), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 848, applicable to obligations issued after Dec. 31, 1983.

This chapter, referred to in par. (8), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 93–406, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Titles I, III, and IV of such Act are classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1989—Pars. (3)(A), (4), (5). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7891(a)(1), substituted “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “Internal Revenue Code of 1954”, which for purposes of codification was translated as “title 26” thus requiring no change in text.

Par. (6). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7891(a)(1), substituted “section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954”, which for purposes of codification was translated as “section 408 of title 26” thus requiring no change in text.

Pub. L. 101–239, § 7894(c)(11)(A), substituted “section 409 of title 26 (as effective for obligations issued before January 1, 1984)” for “section 409 of title 26”.

Pub. L. 101–239, § 7894(c)(1)(A)(i), struck out “or” after semicolon at end.

Par. (7). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7894(c)(1)(A)(ii), substituted “plan; or” for “plan.”

Par. (8). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7894(c)(1)(A)(iii), substituted “any plan” for “Any plan”.

1980—Par. (8). Pub. L. 96–364 added par. (8).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by section 7891(a)(1) of Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 7891(f) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 1002 of this title.

Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7894(c)(1)(B), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2449, provided that: “The amendments made by subparagraph (A) [amending this section] shall take effect as if included in section 411 of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 [Pub. L. 96–364].”

Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7894(c)(11)(B), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2449, provided that: “The amendment made by subparagraph (A) [amending this section] shall take effect as if originally included in section 491(b) of Public Law 98–369.”

Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–364 effective Sept. 26, 1980, except as specifically provided, see section 1461(e) of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 405 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Otis J. Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Otis J. Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “A top hat plan is “a plan which is unfunded and is maintained by an employer primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees,” 29 U.”

Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753 (1992). · cites it 2× “See 29 U. S. C. § 1051 (6). Although a debtor's interest in these plans could not be excluded under § 541(c)(2) because the plans lack transfer restrictions enforceable under "applicable nonbankruptcy law," that interest [5] nevertheless could be exempted under § 522(d)(10)(E).”

Nichols Ex Rel. Alcatel Network Sys. Salaried Retirees Benefit Prog. v. Alcatel USA, Inc., 532 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Determining whether an agreement constitutes a welfare or pension plan is a question of fact. Hansen v. Continental Ins.”

Jeffrey Edward Huber v. Lightforce USA, Inc., 367 P.3d 228 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 4× “§§ 1051-1061 ], See 29 U.S.C. § 1051 (2). If the CSO is a top hat plan, the goodwill benefit was forfeitable if Huber were terminated for unsatisfactory performance.”

Alexander v. Brigham & Women's Physicians Org., Inc., 513 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1051 (2). Not surprisingly, then, the questions before us revolve around the proper scope of that exemption.”

Edward E. Lucente, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 310 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 2002). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1051 (2) (exempting plans that are unfunded and designed primarily to provide deferred compensation for select executives); Demery v.”

Sanders v. Gravel Prods., Inc., 2008 ND 161 (N.D. 2008). · cites it 3× “1996); 29 U.S.C. §§ 1051 (2), 1081(a)(3), and 1101(a)(1).”

Gerald E. Fields v. Thompson Printing Co., Inc. Gilbert M. Thompson, Gerald E. Fields v. Thompson Printing Co Gilbert M. Thompson, 363 F.3d 259 (3rd Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “Specifically, “Top Hat” plans are not subject to ERISA’s requirements for vesting and funding, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 1051 (2); 1081(a), and the administrators of these plans are not subject to ERISA’s fiduciary requirements.”

Schroeder v. New Century Holdings, Inc. (In Re New Century Holdings, Inc.), 387 B.R. 95 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008). · cites it 3× “Upon that decision, the plaintiffs asserted that they were entitled to recover under § 1132(a)(1)(B); however, the court stated that: If recovery under the terms of the [deferred compensation plan] were the nature of plaintiffs’ action, they would recover very little because…”

Sullivan v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y, 649 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “See 29 U.S.C. § 1051 (1) (exempting welfare-benefit plans from the vesting rules in §§ 1052-61).”

Carrabba v. Randalls Food Markets, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 2d 468 (N.D. Tex. 1999). · cites it 6× “nefit plan known as the Management Security Plan for Cul-lum Companies (“MSP”), of which the named plaintiffs and the class of persons they represent in this action (“Class”) were participants, was “maintained by an employer primarily for the purpose of providing deferred…”

Norman S. Adams v. Avondale Indus., Inc. Connell Indus., Inc. Connell Ltd. P'ship, 905 F.2d 943 (6th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. §§ 1051 , 1081. Although Congress considered imposing vesting requirements on welfare benefits, it decided to limit vesting to pension plans in order to “keep [ ] costs within reasonable limits.”

Show all 405 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 1051(2) — 4 cases

Casey v. Semco Energy, Inc., 92 P.3d 379 (Alaska 2004).

Evanoff v. Banner Mattress Co., Inc., 526 F. Supp. 2d 810 (N.D. Ohio 2007).

Zebrowski v. Evonik Degussa Corp. Admin. Comm., 578 F. App'x 89 (3rd Cir. 2014).

McLellan v. Klein, 867 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. App. 1994).

— 29 U.S.C. § 1051(6) — 2 cases

In Re Ewell, 104 B.R. 458 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989).

State of Missouri, ex rel, Chris Koster, Attorney Gen. v. Mark Bailey, 493 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.