Talk:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How bankruptcy law hurts the PBGC[edit]

Because of the operation of the automatic stay and the power of the United States trustee [[[incorrect; should read simply "bankruptcy trustee"] to avoid transfers and other transactions within a certain period under Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code [????? incomplete sentence]

According to Nicholas Brannick's article in the 2004 Ohio State Law Journal, At the Crossroads of Three Codes (IRS, Bankruptcy, ERISA) page 1606 "Despite the appearance of protection for the PBGC's interest in the event of termination, the Bankruptcy Code frequently strips the PBGC of the protection provided under ERISA. Under ERISA, termination liability may arise on the date of termination, but the lien that protects the PBGC's interest in that liability must be perfected" But the act of perfecting a lien is considered by the ill-advised [non-neutral point of view] bankruptcy judges to be the equivalent of other post-petition "transfers" which the bankrupcty trustee can avoid. This is due to the definition of a "transfer" to include [sic] things like obtaining a security interest or lien or even the perfecting of such security interest.

A similar problem with interpretation of the powers of the trustee to avoid transfer also showed up in the infamous [non-neutral point of view] Deprizio case, which Congress thouight [sic] they correct [sic] in the 1994 Bankruptcy Reform [actually the correction was made in the 1984 amendments, not the 1994 Bankruptcy Reform Act.] Most recently in the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act, Congress added Section 547(i) to correct the judges [non-neutral point of view] on reversing transfers for non-insiders being treated as insiders.

Note: I moved the above text from the main article on 7 January 2006, and added the bolded comments at that time. Famspear 18:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plan Termination article[edit]

I think we need a separate article to deal with this and we can link both the ERISA and the PBGC article's termination section to it. I will look for my study note written by former PBGC chief actuary Ron Gebhardsbauer.John wesley 19:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC) [correction to name and title --Hibsch 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Budget and pensions[edit]

from 1 entitled "House approves $1.1T bill financing government", it says "...The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. estimates that the fund that backs multi-employer plans is about $42.4 billion short of the money needed to cover benefits for plans that have failed or will fail...."--Billymac00 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "federal corporation"?[edit]

Five hundred dollars for the best explanation, one thousand if it's in plain English. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" A congressional or federal charter is a federal statute that establishes a corporation. Congress has issued charters since 1791, although most charters were issued after the start of the 20th century." Hope that helps. Cheers! Sandcherry (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not one bit. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on the opening sentence[edit]

There is no clear consensus. Most of the arguments seem to be over the direct legal definition of the article subject, with some believing one form or another is more accurate or accessible. In general, the first sentence of an article should be simple for non-specialist readers and in plain English (MOS:FIRST). Whether "agency," "independent agency," or "federally chartered corporation" is most accessible to non-specialist readers is probably a direction I'd point subsequent discussion toward, saving legal technicalities to be expounded upon elsewhere. --slakr\ talk / 03:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of the following opening sentences is clearer, A or B? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is an agency of the United States government that was created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private defined benefit pension plans, provide timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits, and keep pension insurance premiums at the lowest level necessary to carry out its operations.

B: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a United States "federally chartered corporation" created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private defined benefit pension plans, provide timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits, and keep pension insurance premiums at the lowest level necessary to carry out its operations.

Survey[edit]

What's a "cold" wikilink? -The Gnome (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]
I imagine it's a typo for could wikilink. I would assume in other contexts a cold wikilink is an un-piped link, but that doesn't apply here. MarginalCost (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Many thanks for clarifying that. I was searching high and low for that new 'term'. -The Gnome (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was typo for “could”, dang teeny touchscreen/autotype... But now I want to come up with a meaning for “cold” link ;-}. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Based on The Gnome's comment, I support "wholly owned government corporation", as at Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (which reads slightly better than the version at Export–Import Bank of the United States). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither - Summoned by bot. How about a more succinct, better Wiki-linked version, with a shorter first sentence?:
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a United States federally chartered corporation that protects the retirement income of workers in private sector defined benefit pension plans. PBGC was created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private defined benefit pension plans, provide timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits, and keep pension insurance premiums at the lowest level necessary to carry out its operations.
TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only real difference between the two versions proposed in this RfC is how PBGC is defined. The rest of the text is identical in the two versions. PGBC is defined by law as a "wholly owned Government corporation," which is a subset of Congressionally chartered organisations. The descriptions in other sources may vary (and some may indeed include "federally chartered" in them) but we have to respect the official designation as set by law. The fact that we happen to have a wikilink for another definition is, of course, irrelevant; otherwise, the streetlight effect bias kicks in. -The Gnome (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A potential lede based on the suggestions provided follows. Comments? Sandcherry (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a wholly owned U.S. government corporation that protects the retirement income of workers in private sector defined benefit pension plans. PBGC was created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private defined benefit pension plans, provide timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits, and keep pension insurance premiums at the lowest level necessary to carry out its operations.
Greetings, Sandcherry. Without commenting on the the substance of your proposal, let me again point out that the only difference between the two versions proposed in this RfC is how PBGC is defined. The rest of the text is identical in the two versions and should be, if anyone wants to initiate it, the subject of a separate RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The law says "wholly owned Government corporation." If other sources, even government sources, paraphrase or misquote the law, this does not give us permission to do the same in Wikipedia: The prime, most reliable source on how the law defines something is obviously the law itself. Additional definitions may perhaps be tolerated, as a matter of additional information, but the prime definition is the law's. -The Gnome (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the law says. I read your comment. I understood your comment. My comment was in relation to the question being asked of this RfC - Which of the following opening sentences is clearer, A or B? - In my view, the most commonly used term is the clearest. When government sources, reliable sources, The Department of Justice, The United States Supreme Court and Congress all use the term agency to refer to the PBGC, I think Wikipedia is on safe ground per our policies and guidelines in using that term as well. Your mileage may vary. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. As to "most commonly used terms," I'd venture that, for example, most people in the U.S. commonly call policemen "cops," yet Wikipedia persists in not using descriptions such as "the cops arrived" in articles. But since your criterion is "clarity," could you please elaborate on why you think the term "agency" is so much clearer than the term "corporation"? -The Gnome (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Research, that's what made me think "agency" would be clearer to our readers and the preferred term over "corporation". When I searched for PBGC, obviously the first result is their website, and they clearly self-identify as an U.S. Government Agency. When you exclude their website and Wikipedia, the other top searches listed were: Benefits.gov Managing Agency, USA.gov Agency Details...Government branch: Independent Agency, Investopedia (PBGC) is an independent federal agency...Gerald Ford, formally establishing PBGC as the agency, Unclaimed Assets.com (PBGC) is the federal agency..., Forbes - the agency said its single employer program..., and Brookings.edu, which just used their acronym: PBGC - PBGC. So based on just that first page of results, it was clear to me that the most commonly used term was "agency", and it was the preferred term over "corporation". I don't think most people go past the first page of results, but in case they do, page 2 was the same: An independent agency, Agency Report, Thomas Perez wrote, “Congress and stakeholders need to work together to provide solutions” to the agency’s projected deficit., ...the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the government agency that insures pension plans., (PBGC) is a federal agency..., So in my view, it was obvious to me that "agency" would be clearer to our readers and was the most commonly used term, and it was preferred over "corporation". But alas, I like to do my homework when I comment at a RfC, so I noticed that the American Bar Association (also on page 2 search results) discussed agency deference in PBGC v. LTV. So off I went to investigate and research some more.
Further research and conclusions

Government websites:

Education websites:

Journal Articles:

News Articles

Supreme Court cases (which I especially found compelling for an argument of "agency" being clearer to our readers):

  • In PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION v THE LTV CORP. ET AL. the court gives the obligatory legal definition of PBGC as a "wholly owned United States Government corporation" in their statement of facts, but then throughout the rest of the court's opinion, they refer to PBGC as an "agency", easily recognizable and clearer because agency is most often associated with a government entity. THE LTV CORP., which is also a corporation (private) is referred to as a "company", again easily recognizable and clearer because company is most often associated with a private corporation. My presumption is that considering both are corporations, the court had to make a distinction between the two when discussing them, hence PBGC is referred to as an "agency" (clear and recognizable) and LTV is referred to as a "company" (clear and recognizable) when issuing their ruling. And when I looked at other Supreme Court cases involving the PBGC, I found the same thing, the term "agency" being used. Again, my presumption is that since so many of their cases involved private corporations vs a government corporation, they had to make that distinction clear in their language as to exactly who they were referring to.
  • Language used throughout their ruling:
    • Having determined that the PBGC's construction is not contrary to clear congressional intent, we still must ascertain whether the agency's policy is based upon a "permissible" construction of the statute, that is, a construction that is "rational and consistent with the statute."
    • The court then found the agency's anti-follow-on policy to be contrary to law because the "legislative history of section 4047 reveals no indication that Congress intended the establishment of successive i.e., follow-on benefit plans to be a ground for restoration." Id., at 1017.
    • Finally, the court concluded that the agency's restoration decision was arbitrary and capricious because the PBGC's decisionmaking process of informal adjudication lacked adequate procedural safeguards. Id., at 1021.
    • The PBGC contends that the Court of Appeals misapplied the general rule that an agency must take into consideration all relevant factors, see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), by requiring the agency explicitly to consider and discuss labor and bankruptcy law. We agree.
    • The statute does not direct the PBGC to make restoration decisions that further the "public interest" generally, but rather empowers the agency to restore when restoration would further the interests that Title IV of ERISA is designed to protect.
    • The PBGC points out problems that would arise if federal courts routinely were to require each agency to take explicit account of public policies that derive from federal statutes other than the agency's enabling Act.
    • Finally, we consider the Court of Appeals' ruling that the agency procedures were inadequate in this particular case. For these reasons, we believe the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the PBGC's restoration decision was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed adequately to consider principles and policies of bankruptcy law and labor law.
    • At the very least, there is serious doubt about the matter, and if the Court of Appeals was correct that the PBGC's assessment of respondents' financial position was inadequate — and I think it was — the case should be remanded to the agency to consider whether the anti-follow-on plan by itself provides sufficient grounds for a restoration order.
    • Nor may the PBGC's restoration order be upheld even though the agency might reach the same result on remand, relying only on the anti-follow-on policy.
    • I, therefore, would remand the case for a determination of whether that ground for the agency decision is adequately supported by the record.

Secondary reliable source discussing the Supreme Court ruling, which is what Wikipedia prefers:

  • New York Times 1990 - Notice how they use "agency" for PBGC and "company" for LTV.
    • The Supreme Court handed a crucial victory today to the troubled Federal agency that insures the nation's private pension plans, giving it the power to make an employer take back responsibility for pension obligations.
    • The ruling will provide needed relief for the agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    • The pension agency permitted the bankrupt steelmaker to end the plans, which have unfunded liabilities of more than $2 billion, and began paying reduced benefits under the Federal pension insurance program it administers.
    • Two lower Federal courts blocked the restoration order, ruling that the pension agency lacked the legal authority to issue it.
    • The Supreme Court overturned those rulings today in an 8-to-1 decision that the pension agency hailed as a vindication of its efforts to police the way companies use the pension insurance program that Congress established 16 years ago.
    • The agency, which has liabilities of $4 billion but assets of only $3 billion, had argued that the insurance program would be in serious financial jeopardy if it could not order companies in LTV's circumstances to reinstate their pension plans.
    • Two members of the majority, Justices Byron R. White and Sandra Day O'Connor, issued a separate opinion to say that while they agreed with the Court's analysis of the pension agency's legal authority, the agency should have been required to make additional findings because of serious doubt about LTV's financial position.
    • The company issued a statement today that asserted, We still cannot afford the plans.
    • Although the company said that it could not make new payments into the plans, it said that there were funds now in the plans that could be paid out to meet scheduled payments in full for some limited time.

Conclusions:

  • So based on my research, and based on the specificity of the question asked in the RfC, and based on what our readers are going to find when they do a cursory search for the PBGC themselves, my conclusion is that "agency" is the obvious choice as being clearer to our readers.
  • I do understand that I am the lone dissenter in this RfC, and that's cool, obviously I respect the consensus, but I like to be thorough when I respond to a specific question being asked in a RfC, if the question had been - what is the legal definition of PBGC - I probably would have reached a different conclusion.
  • And since you invoked other stuff exists in your comparison of policemen/cops. Here's a couple of other government corporations, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - when I go to the bank drive-through, I see a sticker/sign in the window that states my money is insured by the FDIC - commonly used and clear. If you wanted to check the price of a train ticket to D.C., would you think to call the National Railroad Passenger Corporation or would you think to call AMTRAK - commonly used and definitely clearer. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We still disagree, Isaidnoway, but I have to congratulate you on the thorough work. That's the way to do it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • B (randomly invited by a bot) "Agency" is a more general, less definitive term than "federally chartered corporation". Per previous B !voters, no need for quotation marks and please link federally chartered corporation. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A I try to put readers first, and wherever possible, I support the use of plain English over legal jargon. I wouldn't be averse to rewriting the first paragraph, but I was looking for comments specifically concerning the use of an obscure and undefined phrase (in quotation marks, no less) that another editor was edit-warring to keep. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A I ALSO try to put readers first, and wherever possible, I support the use of plain English over legal jargon. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Since when the term "corporation" is "legal jargon"? It happens to be one of the most commonly used words in the English language and I cannot bother with sources to support that. I'd guess that the term "government," too, would only by mistake be labelled as "legal jargon"! We're left with wholly owned. Do we seriously need a law degree to immediately and totally understand what that means? -The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the question in the RfC. Can you explain what a "federally chartered corporation" is? in plain English? I've been a PBGC contractor since 2002, and I can't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my response. I accepted the term "corporation" from choice B, but qualified that choice by explicitly pointing out that we need to use the terminology used by the law of the land, which is plain and simple: A wholly owned government corporation and if there are terms in that which sound difficult to some people then, sorry, we cannot simplify it any more. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler,” as attributed to Einstein. (The tern "federally chartered" comes nowhere near my choice.) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • The entire article has issues with reading like a direct copy of public-domain government sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thanks to the OP for setting up a proper RFC, with separate survey and comment/discussion sections. I only wish those of you who are posting discussion replies in the survey section would comply with RFC guidelines and use the discussion section instead. That makes the closer's job easier and shows respect for the opinions of others. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to The Gnome's Comment above - You argued - It does not matter how other sources, however reliable, denote PBGC - I rejected that argument because it's in direct contradiction of WP:NPOV, it does matter, we're supposed to look at all the sources for prominence and viewpoints in their descriptions and references to PBGC. We include all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. We don't exclude them and say it does not matter. I've shown there is legal precedent to define the PBGC as a government agency, see SCOTUS. I've shown that all 3 branches of the U.S. Government, the DOJ (enforces laws), Congress (makes laws), and the Courts (interprets/evaulates laws) all share the same widely held viewpoint that the PBGC can be, and is, described as a government agency, and all 3 branches explicitly refer to the PBGC as a government agency, which is also reflected on government websites and the PBGC website, which would be the first place our readers would look for detailed information about the agency. And I've shown the same viewpoint and prominence of the usage of government agency in reliable sources as well. I don't know why editors (including me) become so entrenched in their positions and act like there is no room for compromise. What's wrong with using the commonly used term "government agency" and at the same time giving the "legal definition" for PBGC. Seems like to me that is the best solution for our readers. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, on the comment about my (and others') alleged intransigence, Isaidnoway. Through the years I've been active here, I must have revised my opinion in RfCs and AfDs a significant number of times on the basis of discussion and/or new arguments or evidence. A number high enough to refute any allegation about me becoming "entrenched" in my original position in discussions. The record is out there for anyone who cares to investigate.
On the substance of the discussion: I wrote that we need to give the definition given by the law of the land prime place in the text. That is all there is to it. I never "rejected" the other sources; I merely pointed out that, what with Wikipedia being above all an encyclopaedia and not some kind of CliffsNotes, we must provide accurate and reliable information to users, from the student doing research to the casual reader. This is the same principle we follow on names, for instance: Everyone and every media on earth may refer to some famous person as "Jim Smith" but we always provide the official, full-style, legal birth name of the person, e.g. "James Earl Smith Jr."
PBGC organization is a wholly owned government corporation; even says so in its name. The term "federal agency" is not an unacceptable term. But this is about how the organization should be defined in the opening section, with a definition sourced to the law. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read the RfC question as asking for - a definition sourced to the law - this must be why we disagree, you believe that clearer means a definition sourced to the law, while I believe, and have shown, that the most commonly used definition is clearer to our readers, (also sourced to the law), because I too believe we must provide accurate and reliable information to our readers. And speaking of the encyclopedia being clearer to our readers in regards to names, we use the most commonly used name for our subjects of BLP's in article titles, rather than Reginald Kenneth Dwight or Paul David Hewson or Cherilyn Sarkisian or Aubrey Graham or Michael Peter Balzary. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. This is not about an article's title but about a subject's definition. In articles about persons we choose the article's title per WP:COMMONNAME but we give in the main section of the text, usually when stating date and place of birth, the full name, aka the person's legal name. The same principle applies here, about organizations such as PBGC: We must first and foremost present them as they are officially and legally denoted. From that point onward, we can of course refer to the organization using the most common appellation per sources, e.g. "agency." The RfC is about the opening section. -The Gnome (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we disagree doesn't mean one of us has to be wrong. But seriously, how many of those names did you have to search to find out who they were? Isaidnoway (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The names you quoted? I happen to know that the first one is Elton John. I don't know the others. When I search for "Elton John" and come upon an encyclopaedia, I expect to learn right off his real, full (legal) name. From then on, of course, I don't expect and don't want to read about "Reg" in the text. Same principle as in the RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corporation&oldid=1204579303"