What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 7pm Tuesday 9am - 7pm Wednesday 9am - 7pm Thursday 9am - 7pm Friday 9am - 7pm Saturday 9am - 2pm

Pension Justice 4 You

Home
United States
Bloomfield Hills, MI
Pension Justice 4 You

Learn whether you have a viable pension claim. Call our pension lawyer Eva Cantarella at 248-335-5000 In the mean time, the class member pays nothing. Ms. A. 1. Q.

The primary way our pension lawyers help people recover their pension benefits is through the class action device. A “class action” is a lawsuit brought on behalf of many individuals, all of whom have been wronged in the same or similar manner. The “class” is that group of similarly situated individuals. A “class claim” for pension benefits is a claim brought on behalf of a group of similarly situ

ated individuals (the “class”) who have received a pension amount that is less than the amount to which they are entitled. Typically, there must be at least 40 such similarly situated individuals to bring the pension claim as a “class claim” or “class action.”

The main advantage to bringing a pension claim as a class claim is that individual pension claims are usually too small for an attorney to accept on a contingency basis, or for the individual to pay hourly attorney fees; whereas, if the pension claim can be brought as a class action, the attorney can accept representation on a contingency basis, meaning the attorney will get paid if and only if he/she recovers additional pension benefits for the class members. Our pension lawyers bring class claims for pension benefits so they can help many individuals with the same pension claim, rather than just a few individuals with a pension claim. If you believe your pension claim has class action potential, as opposed to only individual potential (see Q&A section below), call our senior pension specialist, pension lawyer Eva T. Cantarella, at 248-335-5000, or send her an email at [email protected] or [email protected]. There is no charge for the consult.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Hertz Schram PC and Its Pension Justice Department
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hertz Schram PC is one of the leading law firms in the country helping participants and beneficiaries recover the pension benefits to which they are legally entitled. In the past 20 years, our pension lawyers have recovered over $120 million in pension benefits for over 20,000 pension plan participants and their beneficiaries. The pension activities of our lead pension attorney, Eva Cantarella, have been reported in numerous publications and on many websites, including the Wall Street Journal. Cantarella, has also testified before the Internal Revenue Service and United States Department of Treasury on regulations governing tax-qualified pension plans. In short, we have actively sought to protect the interests of pension plan participants and their beneficiaries through not only litigation, but also through the regulatory process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q&As
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. What are some examples of pension claims that very often DO have class action potential? The plan used the wrong formula to compute the pension.

2. The plan administrator reduced benefits for a whole group of participants, claiming it was permitted to do so under the terms of the plan or an existing statute. Neither might be true.

3. The participant elects a lump sum distribution of his/her pension, but when the participant receives the lump sum it is much smaller than the amount originally estimated by the plan administrator. The plan administrator might have used an unlawfully high interest discount rate or the wrong mortality table, or both, or there could be some other calculation error.

4. A “critically underfunded” multiemployer pension plan* cuts disability benefits provided under the plan. While “critically underfunded” multiemployer pension plans may lawfully reduce some benefits, they may not lawfully reduce disability benefits that are in pay status.

* A multiemployer pension plan is a pension plan to which more than one employer contributes [usually dozens or hundreds of employers, sometimes over a thousand employers] and is maintained pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. In general, such plans are deemed to be “critically underfunded” or in“critical status” if they have less than 65% of the funds necessary to pay all current and future benefit obligations.

5. The participant receives a lump sum distribution of his/her entire pension benefit and the amount seems too small in light of the participant’s lengthy service with the employer. It just might be, although the reasons for any calculation error can vary greatly.

6. The plan administrator used the wrong vesting schedule to determine whether the participant was owed a pension benefit.

7. A plant or facility was closed resulting in many employees losing not only their jobs, but their participation in the pension plan and pension benefits. What are some examples of pension claims that generally do NOT have class action potential because they apply only to the individual rather than a group of similarly-situated individuals? The plan administrator used the wrong age FOR ME when it computed my pension benefit.

2. The plan administrator failed to use all of MY service when it computed my pension benefit.

3. The plan administrator mistakenly paid part of my pension to my ex-wife.

4. The plan administrator claims to have mistakenly overpaid my pension benefits and now wants the difference back. Caveat: If you learn that the plan administrator is making this same claim as to many similarly-situated individuals, there may be a class claim, although this will generally not be the case. What documents will a pension lawyer need to see in order to evaluate whether a pension claim has class action potential. A. At a minimum, (i) the full formal plan document in effect when the participant separated from service, (ii) the summary plan description for such plan, and (iii) any documents exchanged between the participant and the plan administrator pertaining to the claim. Other documents might also be needed. Our pension lawyers can help you obtain all necessary documents.

03/26/2026

Post #620.

Fax Failed to Remove Ex-Wife as Beneficiary of Deceased Worker’s 401(k) Account

One can never be too careful when naming or changing beneficiaries to one’s retirement account. A recent case illustrates this point. Packaging Corp. of Am. Thrift Plan for Hourly Emps. v. Langdon, NO. 25-1859, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3261 (7th Cir., Feb. 2, 2026). Here’s what happened.

Carl Kleinfelt worked for Packaging Corporation of America (“PCA”) and participated in its 401(k) plan. In 2006, Carl married Dena Langdon and named her as the primary beneficiary of his 401(k) account and his sisters Terry Scholz and Lisa Kotte as contingent beneficiaries in the event Dena predeceased them. In 2012, Lisa passed away, leaving Terry as the sole contingent beneficiary.

In 2022, Carl and Dena divorced. Thereafter, Carl sent a fax to PCA’s benefits center, requesting that Dena be removed as the primary beneficiary of his 401(k) account. The following year (2023), Carl passed away. This led to a dispute between Dena and Carl’s estate, as both claimed entitlement to the 401(k) account. Faced with these competing claims, PCA filed an “interpleader” action in federal district court, asking the court to decide who was entitled to the retirement account. While the interpleader action was pending, Carl’s other sister (Terry) passed away. The district court then added Terry’s estate as a party to the litigation believing her estate might also have a claim to the retirement account.

Ultimately, the district court found that Carl’s fax to PCA’s benefits center removed Dena as a beneficiary, leaving Terry as the sole remaining beneficiary. But since Terry passed away during the litigation, the district court awarded Carl’s retirement account to Terry’s estate.

Dena appealed and argued that Carl’s fax did not remove her as the primary beneficiary because it did not comply with the plan’s procedures for doing so. The Court of Appeals agreed. While acknowledging that the fax demonstrated that Carl did not want Dena to receive his retirement account, the Court of Appeals explained that the plan requires participants to contact the PCA benefits Center directly to update beneficiary designations, or to update their beneficiary designations online, but Carl had not followed these instructions. The Court of Appeals emphasized that it is important for efficient and consistent plan administration that participants comply with plan terms regarding beneficiary designations. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ruled that Carl’s fax was ineffective to remove Dena as the primary beneficiary of his retirement account, reversed the district court, and awarded the 401(k) account to Dena (Carl’s ex-wife).

The point of this post is that you MUST follow your retirement plan’s procedures for naming, updating, or removing beneficiaries. Otherwise, your retirement funds might not go to your intended beneficiaries after you pass. Worse, they may go to persons you definitely did not intend to receive your retirement funds (as was the case here).

[All Posts on this page are written by pension lawyer Eva Cantarella who can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. If you like this Post, please Share it with your Friends. To receive automatic notifications of new pension/retirement Posts, please click the Follow tab near the top of Eva’s “Pension Justice 4 You” page.]

03/11/2026

Post #619.

Retiree Wins Pension Claim on “Equitable” Grounds

In 2002, Sarah Woo commenced employment with Kaiser Foundation Hospitals which sponsored a Supplemental Retirement Plan administered by Vanguard. In 2009, Vanguard sent Woo a letter confirming that she was eligible to participate in an after-tax component of the Plan, known as the SRIP. Woo then enrolled in the SRIP and made voluntary contributions to it. Over the course of a decade, Kaiser, by and through its agents, repeatedly confirmed in both phone calls and letters that Woo was an eligible active participant in the SRIP. However, in December 2020, Kaiser informed Woo for the first time that she was ineligible to participate in the SRIP; that it had inadvertently permitted her to make contributions to the SRIP; and that Kaiser had discovered this error only after conducting a data quality audit.

In response, Woo filed an administrative claim in 2021 for pension benefits under the SRIP. Kaiser denied the claim, reasoning that Woo was ineligible to participate in the SRIP. Woo then filed an administrative appeal for pension benefits under the SRIP, but Kaiser denied it too.

In 2023, Woo filed a lawsuit against the SRIP in federal court, alleging a single “equitable estoppel” claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) for pension benefits under the SRIP. Thereafter, both parties filed motions for a judgment in their favor. Kaiser argued that Woo was not entitled to pension benefits under the SRIP because she was never an actual participant in the SRIP. Woo argued that Kaiser was “equitably estopped” from asserting that she was not a participant in the SRIP given its numerous representations over an 11-year period that she WAS a participant in the SRIP.

In considering these arguments, the federal court explained that, to prove a claim of “equitable estoppel” under ERISA, the plaintiff must establish (1) a material misrepresentation by the defendant concerning an interpretation of the plan; (2) reasonable and detrimental reliance on the misrepresentation; (3) extraordinary circumstances; and (4) ambiguity in the meaning of the plan provision at issue.

The federal court found that Woo had established all four elements of her equitable estoppel claim. First, she had shown that Kaiser had repeatedly represented to her that she was eligible to participate in the SRIP when, in fact, the SRIP was ambiguous on that issue. Second, she reasonably and detrimentally relied on Kaiser’s representations that she was eligible to participate in the SRIP by regularly contributing to it. Third, the circumstances were extraordinary because Kaiser continued the representations for over 10 years. And, lastly, the plan provision regarding who could or could not participate in the SRIP was ambiguous.

Given that Woo had established all of the elements of her equitable estoppel claim, the federal court granted Woo’s motion for a judgment in her favor. Woo v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan Inc., No. 23-cv-05063, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14176 (N.D. Ca. Jan. 26, 2026).

The significance of this case is that it underscores the benefits of advancing equitable theories, in addition to legal theories, when pursuing an ERISA claim for pension benefits.

[All Posts on this page are written by pension lawyer Eva Cantarella who can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. If you like this Post, please Share it with your Friends. To receive automatic notifications of new pension/retirement Posts, please click the Follow tab near the top of Eva’s “Pension Justice 4 You” page.]

02/25/2026

Post #618.

Plan Terms Trump Deceased Participant’s Pension Beneficiary Designation

One can never be too careful when naming one’s pension beneficiaries. A recent case illustrates this point. Mundell v Natsios-Mundell, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 35042(U), 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10500 (Dec. 31, 2025).

Dr. Robert Mundell participated in three retirement plans administered by the Teachers Insurance Annuity Associates and College Retirement Equity Fund (TIAA-CREF). In 1964, Dr. Mundell designated his first wife as the primary beneficiary of his retirement accounts, and their three children as the successor beneficiaries. Dr. Mundell subsequently divorced his first wife and, in 1998, married Valerie Mundell to whom he remained married until his death in 2021.

In 2013, Dr. Mundell suffered a stroke that left him unable to communicate or manage his affairs. However, in 2014, while he was still incapacitated, TIAA-CREF received an electronic beneficiary designation naming Valerie [the second wife] as the 100% beneficiary of all of his TIAA-CREF retirement accounts. After Dr. Mundell passed away, his three children sued Valeri, claiming she had fraudulently changed Dr. Mundell’s beneficiary designation to name herself as the sole beneficiary, and that they were the rightful beneficiaries. Valerie responded that each of the plans contained a provision designating a participant’s spouse as the default beneficiary unless another beneficiary is named with the spouse’s written, notarized consent, and that she had not consented to naming the three children as beneficiaries, much less in writing.

In considering these arguments, the court found that each of the plans provided that upon a divorce and remarriage, the new spouse automatically becomes the beneficiary. Therefore, as a matter of law, the plans effectively gave Valerie the sole right to the beneficiary proceeds. Accordingly, Dr. Mundell’s children had no valid claim against Valerie regarding their alleged entitlement to the proceeds and the court dismissed their claims.

The lesson to be learned (or remembered) from this case is that where a pension plan addresses beneficiary designations those provisions typically control who is the rightful beneficiary.

[All Posts on this page are written by pension lawyer Eva Cantarella who can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. If you like this Post, please Share it with your Friends. To receive automatic notifications of new pension/retirement Posts, please click the Follow tab near the top of Eva’s “Pension Justice 4 You” page.]

02/11/2026

Post #617.

Lockheed Martin Wrongfully Denied Pension Benefits to Participant’s Beneficiaries

Things can get complicated when a long-service employee dies before commencing his/her pension. A recent case illustrates what I mean. Marchetti v. Lockheed Marin Corp., No. 3:22-cv-1527, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7985 (D.Conn. Jan. 15, 2026).

Natale Marchetti worked for Lockheed Martin and participated in its pension plan. Lockheed administered the plan. On October 17, 2021, Natale passed away. At the time, Natale was 62 years old, single, and had 43 years of service with Lockheed (or its predecessors) but had not yet commenced his pension, although he was eligible to do so.

One year earlier, in October 2020, Natale executed a power of attorney (“POA”) form appointing his brother Dennis to act on his behalf in matters dealing with estates and retirement plans. The POA form required Natale to check a box on the form if he wished Dennis to create or change a beneficiary designation, but Natale never checked that box and he had not previously designated a beneficiary for his pension.

Shortly after Natale passed away, a company that performed ministerial functions for the plan received a completed beneficiary designation form dated and postmarked two days before Natale’s death, naming Natale’s four siblings as his beneficiaries and signed by Dennis as Natale’s POA. However, Lockheed took the position that Natale’s siblings were not entitled to beneficiary payments, reasoning that Natale never checked the box on the POA form giving Dennis the right to designate them as beneficiaries with respect to his pension. Therefore, the POA form was ineffective and, according to Lockheed, this meant there were no beneficiaries.

Dennis then sued Lockheed in a Connecticut federal district court, both in his individual capacity and as the administrator of Natale’s estate. The complaint alleged that, regardless of whether the POA was effective, Lockheed owed beneficiary payments to Natale’s siblings UNDER THE TERMS OF THE PLAN. The federal district court agreed. It explained that, under the plan’s definition of “beneficiary,” if a non-married participant dies without having explicitly designated a beneficiary, the default beneficiary is the participant’s estate. Because Dennis and the other siblings were the heirs to Natale’s estate, the district court ruled that they were Natale’s beneficiaries under the terms of the plan. Accordingly, the district court ordered Lockheed to pay Natale’s pension death benefits to his siblings.

While this ruling was certainly good news for Dennis and Natale’s other siblings, the district court did not specify the “amount” Lockheed owed to Natale’s estate (i.e., to his siblings). Rather, the district court ordered the parties to meet and confer for the purpose of determining “what, if any dispute remains as to the amount to be paid.”

The lesson to be learned from this case is that if you want certain individuals to receive your pension death benefits AFTER you pass (i) designate them as your pension beneficiaries BEFORE you pass (assuming the plan allows them as beneficiaries), and (ii) file the beneficiary designation with the plan administrator (again, before you pass).

[All Posts on this page are written by pension lawyer Eva Cantarella who can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. If you like this Post, please Share it with your Friends. To receive automatic notifications of new pension/retirement Posts, please click the Follow tab near the top of Eva’s “Pension Justice 4 You” page.]

01/25/2026

Post #616.

Statute of Limitations Did Not Bar Pensioner’s Claim, Court Rules

In September 1989, Omar Abukhadra (“Omar”) began working at Calyon and enrolled in a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“SERP”) for Calyon’s executives. Under the SERP, Calyon’s executives receive a monthly supplemental retirement benefit based on their prior earnings.

Calyon terminated Omar’s employment in 2005 and paid him approximately nine million dollars in severance. However, Omar remained eligible for Calyon's SERP benefits and he received two documents summarizing his benefits after his termination. The first document was a 2010 Summary Plan Document ("SPD"), which summarized the terms of the SERP. The second document was 2011 summary of retirement benefits, which listed Omar’s six highest-salaried years at Calyon but omitted his severance payment.

In August 2023, Omar became eligible for the SERP benefits and received a letter detailing his payment options. Upon reviewing the letter, Omar discovered that the SERP deemed his severance payment to be "compensation." As such, Omar contended his severance payment should have been included in his 2006 compensation for purposes of calculating his SERP benefits. Omar contacted the Plan Administrator (“PA”) about the alleged miscalculation but the PA informed that Omar that his severance payment would not be included in the calculation of his SERP benefits because (i) the definition of "compensation" in the SPD differed from the definition of "compensation" in the SERP and (ii) in the PA’s view, the SPD controlled.

Given the PA’s refusal to recalculate his SERP benefits, Omar sued the PA in federal district court seeking a ruling that his severance payment must be included in his 2006 compensation for purposes of calculating his SERP benefits. In response, the PA moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Omar’s claim was barred by a six-year statute of limitations. The PA reasoned that the claim expired in January 2017, six years after Omar received the 2011 summary of benefits which omitted his severance payment.

The district court disagreed. It explained that the statute of limitations began to run when Omar had enough information to know there was a miscalculation. Because this was a dispute over which definition of "compensation" governed the calculation of Omar’s retirement benefits, the proper notice question was when did Omar learn that two conflicting definitions of "compensation" existed --one that included his severance payment and one that did not.

The district court found that the 2011 benefits summary did not contain enough information to put Omar on notice that his retirement benefits were calculated using a definition of "compensation" that was inconsistent with the SERP. The benefits summary did not define "compensation" and, in fact, did not use that term at all. The benefits summary also did not reference the SERP or the SPD, the two documents with the conflicting definitions. Instead, the benefits summary simply listed Omar’s six highest-salaried years and provided an annual benefit estimate. In the district court’s view, this information in the benefits summary was too indefinite to commence the running of the limitations clock. Therefore, the district court denied the PA’s motion to dismiss to dismiss Omar’s complaint. Abukhadra v. Calyon Supplemental Exec. Ret. Plan, No. 25-cv-02134 (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025).

While the district court’s ruling was certainly a win for OMAR, it was a procedural win--not a win on the merits. OMAR will still need to prove that his $9 million severance payment should be included in the compensation used to calculate his pension under the SERP.

[All Posts on this page are written by pension lawyer Eva Cantarella who can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. If you like this Post, please Share it with your Friends. To receive automatic notifications of new pension/retirement Posts, please click the Follow tab near the top of Eva’s “Pension Justice 4 You” page.]

01/10/2026

Post #615.

Interfering With an Employee’s Pension Rights Could Get You Sued

Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) makes it “unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate” against a participant in an employee benefits plan “for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” This prohibition applies to pension plans, as well as welfare benefit plans. However, liability under ERISA §510 requires a specific intent to violate the statue and interfere with an employee’s ERISA rights. A recent federal court decision illustrates how a §510 claim might arise. Singleton v. AT&T Enters., No. 1:24-cv-12485, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227029 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2025).

In Singleton, Plaintiff Michael Singleton brought suit in an Illinois federal district court against Illinois Bell Telephone Company, AT&T Enterprises, and AT&T Incorporated (collectively, “the Defendants”), alleging they (i) discriminated against him on account of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Count I”) and (ii) interfered with his pension rights under §510 of ERISA (“Count II”). In support of these allegations, Singleton asserted the following facts:

Singleton worked as a technician for Defendants from 2000 to 2023. Throughout his tenure, Singleton satisfactorily performed the essential functions of his job and consistently met Defendants' expectations. However, starting in 2022, Defendants began treating Singleton—an African American male—less favorably than his similarly situated coworkers. When Singleton complained about this unfair treatment, his supervisors made false noncompliance accusations against him, which triggered inquiries, suspensions, and unwarranted disciplinary action.

Defendants eventually terminated Singleton on December 12, 2023, citing allegations that he was responsible for three workplace accidents within 5 years. Defendants did not, however, terminate Plaintiff's coworker Trevino who was not African American, despite both employees facing identical misconduct allegations. At the time of his termination, Singleton was only a year-and-a-half away from vesting at a higher tiered pension, which would have increased his pension benefits from $140,000 to somewhere between $420,000 and $700,000. By comparison, Trevino's pension had already vested at the higher tier.

In response to the foregoing allegations, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Singleton had not alleged they were his employer. With respect to Count I–the Civil Rights claim–the federal district court explained that only an employer can be liable under Title VII. Finding that Singleton had not alleged that Defendants were his employer, the federal court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I.

But, as to Count II–the ERISA §510 claim–the federal court explained that ANYONE can be found liable for interfering with an employee’s pension rights–not just employers. The federal court found that the foregoing allegations in the complaint sufficed to establish that Singleton had pled a plausible claim for violation of ERISA §510. Accordingly, the federal denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II of the complaint.

While the federal court’s ruling on Count II is clearly a procedural win for Singleton, it is not a ruling on the merits. Singleton will still need to prove that Defendants acted with a specific intent to interfere with his pension rights. Stay tuned for future posts on this case.

[All Posts on this page are written by pension lawyer Eva Cantarella who can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. If you like this Post, please Share it with your Friends. To receive automatic notifications of new pension/retirement Posts, please click the Follow tab near the top of Eva’s “Pension Justice 4 You” page.]

12/26/2025

Post #614.

Pension Benefits Unlawfully “Suspended,” Court of Appeals Rules

Clyde Rombach, a union member, worked for W.G. Tomko, Inc. (“Tomko”) as a foreman and Project Manager from 1989 to 2008. During that time, Tomko made contributions to the union’s pension plan on Rombach’s behalf. In 2009, Rombach left the union and Toko promoted him to the position of Senior Project Manager. The new position included the same job responsibilities as Rombach’s former position as Project Manager but, because it was not a union job, Tomko ceased making contributions to the plan on Rombach’s behalf.

In 2016, while still working as a Senior Project Manager for Tomko, Rombach applied for early retirement benefits under the union plan. The plan denied his application reasoning that, under the terms of the plan, early retirement benefits are suspended if the participant is re-employed (i) in an industry in which any employees covered by the plan were employed when the pension started, (ii) in a trade or craft utilized in the industry, and (iii) in the geographic area covered by the plan when the pension started. The plan contended that all three of these criteria were met and refused to pay Rombach his early retirement benefits. So, Rombach sued in federal district court which ruled in his favor and ordered the plan to immediately commence payment to Rombach of his early retirement benefits, including all past due benefits, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On appeal by the plan, the appellate court observed that the parties agreed that the first and third criteria for the suspension of early retirement benefits were met. They disagreed only as to whether Rombach was employed “in a trade or craft” utilized in the industry–the second criteria.

The court of appeals found the phrase “trade or craft” ambiguous, and that the plan had not attempted to interpret that phrase in denying Rombach his early retirement benefits. Therefore, the court of appeals stated that IT would interpret the phrase. In so doing, the court of appeals found that dictionaries interpreted “trade or craft” as requiring “some amount of manual or artistic skill” but that Rombach’s new position as a Senior Project Manager for Tomko was conducted in a professional office environment which did not require any manual or artistic skill. Therefore, the court of appeals held that Rombach’s new position was not a “trade or craft” and therefore his early retirement benefits should not have been suspended. Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the district court in all respects, including the remedy it had awarded; i.e., payment to Rombach of his early retirement benefits, including all past due benefits and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. Rombach v Plumbers Loc. Union No. 27 Pension Fund, No. 24-2482, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29157 (3rd Cir. Nov. 6, 2025).

Note: This case reveals the importance of carefully reviewing plan terms and provisions in determining whether a participant is or is not entitled to benefits under the plan.

[All Posts on this page are written by pension lawyer Eva Cantarella who can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. If you like this Post, please Share it with your Friends. To receive automatic notifications of new pension/retirement Posts, please click the Follow tab near the top of Eva’s “Pension Justice 4 You” page.]

12/12/2025

Post #613.

Federal Law Guarantees Most Pensions–Up to a Certain Amount

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) was created in 1975 under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), which generally covers only non-governmental employee benefit plans. Among other things, the PBGC guarantees that you will receive your pension benefits if your pension plan terminates or your employer becomes insolvent and unable to fund the plan to pay your pension benefits–up to a certain amount. The maximum amount guaranteed by the PBGC depends on whether your plan is a single employer plan or multiemployer plan (i.e., a collectively bargained plan to which multiple employers make contributions to fund the benefits).

SINGLE EMPLOYER PLAN MAXIMUM PBGC GUARANTEES

For single employer pension plans, the maximum amount guaranteed by the PBGC generally depends on your age when you first start receiving a benefit from the PBGC. However, if your plan ends while your employer is in bankruptcy, the age for determining your maximum guaranteed benefit may be your age when your employer filed for bankruptcy or when you first started receiving a benefit from the plan.

The PBGC publishes tables to help you find your guaranteed benefit. For single employer plans and the 2026 year, the MONTHLY guarantee amounts are as follows for a straight-life annuity and 50% joint and survivor annuity at ages 75, 70, 65, 60, and 55.

Age 75 straight life = $23,680.90; joint and survivor = $21,312.81
Age 70 straight life = $12,931.02; joint and survivor = $11,637.92
Age 65 straight life = $7,789.77; joint and survivor = $7,010.79
Age 60 straight life = $5,063.35; joint and survivor = $4,557.02
Age 55 straight life = $3,505.40; joint and survivor = $3,154.86

Different amounts apply to the joint and survivor annuity if your spouse is not the same age as you or if the survivor annuity is greater than 50% (e.g., if it is a 75% or 100% joint and survivor annuity). For more information on the PBGC guarantees for single employer plans, go to >
https://www.pbgc.gov/workers-retirees/learn/guaranteed-benefits/monthly-maximum

MULTIEMPLOYER PLAN MAXIMUM GUARANTEES

For multiemployer plans, the PBGC maximum guarantee is computed under a complicated formula that is based mainly on (i) how long you worked under the plan (i.e., your years of service), and (ii) your plan’s benefit rate. Here are the multiemployer plan ANNUAL guarantees at 10, 20, 30 and 40 years of service:

10 years of service: $4,290 PER YEAR, but may be less.
20 years of service: $8,580 PER YEAR, but may be less
30 years of service: $12,870 PER YEAR, but may be less
40 years of service: $17,160, PER YEAR, but may be less

For more information on the PBGC guarantees for multiemployer plans go to>
https://www.pbgc.gov/workers-retirees/learn/guaranteed-benefits/multiemployer-plans-facts

While the foregoing is just a broad overview of the PBGC guarantees, one thing is clear: The PBGC guarantees for single employer plans are much higher than for multiemployer plans. The difference is largely due to the fact that single employer plans are typically better funded and have more predictable funding requirements and are therefore less likely to be a drain on PBGC resources.

[All Posts on this page are written by pension lawyer Eva Cantarella who can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. If you like this Post, please Share it with your Friends. To receive automatic notifications of new pension/retirement Posts, please click the Follow tab near the top of Eva’s “Pension Justice 4 You” page.]

12/04/2025

Post #612.

You May Be Overestimating Your Projected 401(k) Savings

A recent article published on Investopedia.com cautions that we may be overestimating our projected 401(k) savings based on faulty assumptions. The article cites a recent market outlook from Goldman Sachs projecting 401(k) earnings in a 60/40 portfolio at about 5.7% (assuming inflation of 2% to 4%), while other market forecasts are in the 4% to 6% range--far lower than the 8% projected earnings used by many 401(k) calculators

As the article explains, if your retirement calculator still assumes an 8% return on your 401(k) investments, it is outdated and overly optimistic and you may eventually find your retirement timeline off track. Quoting financial advisor Kevin Feig, founder of Walk You to Wealth, the article suggests looking at 401(k) returns over the longest horizon possible to avoid overestimating your earnings from recent stock market highs. For example, a typical 60/40 portfolio has returned about 6.1% annually since 1990 but only 5.4% since 1970. Therefore, relying on short-term historical gains such as the last decade of stock performance can be “dangerously misleading.”

If you find that you are off track for retirement, Feig suggests making small changes that will have a big impacts on your ability to comfortably retire, such as contributing more to your 401(k), adjusting your target retirement age, revising your asset allocations, and even taking a job in retirement that “provides some mental stimulation and income.”

To read the entire article click here>>>
https://www.investopedia.com/are-your-401-k-projections-wrong-11765771

[All Posts on this page are written by pension lawyer Eva Cantarella who can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. If you like this Post, please Share it with your Friends. To receive automatic notifications of new pension/retirement Posts, please click the Follow tab near the top of Eva’s “Pension Justice 4 You” page.]

Address

Hertz Schram PC, 1760 S Telegraph Road Ste 300
Bloomfield Hills, MI
48302

Opening Hours

Monday	9am - 7pm
Tuesday	9am - 7pm
Wednesday	9am - 7pm
Thursday	9am - 7pm
Friday	9am - 7pm
Saturday	9am - 2pm

Website

http://www.pensionjustice4you.net/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pension Justice 4 You posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Pension Justice 4 You:

Shortcuts

Want your practice to be the top-listed Law Practice in Bloomfield Hills?