US Appeals Court Rejects Halliburton's Request to Reduce Retiree Benefits

September 5, 2005 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that Halliburton could not alter retiree health benefits for a company it bought in 1998, unless it did the same for active employees.

When Halliburton purchased energy service firm Dresser in 1998, workers and retirees were offered better plans than those offered to other Halliburton employees. The company then claimed that the terms of the merger gave it the right to alter or terminate the Dresser health insurance plans, claiming that it only had an obligation to provide health insurance for three years following the merger. One of the changes included capping monthly drug contributions at $22 per person.

Dresser retirees argued that the three-year limit only applied to employees who worked after the end of this timeframe, not for those who retired before.   In December 2004, the district court threw out the 2003 decision by Halliburton to end the coverage for the retirees of Dresser (See  Halliburton Move to Alter Benefits Shot Down by Court ). The company had expected the move to save the company $93 million.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

In the district court’s ruling , US District Judge Lynn Hughes wrote that “The cost to Halliburton of this benefit is $93 million. This is about one-half of 1% of Halliburton’s revenue totaling $16.3 billion in 2003. This is a lot of money, but if Halliburton now considers it to be somehow too much, the solution is not to change the deal that it made in 1998. Halliburton agreed to this cost as a part of its payment to Dresser.”

The 2003 amendments provided that effective January 1, 2004, Halliburton’s contributions   to the cost of medical coverage would be frozen at the 2003 contribution amounts, forcing plan participants to pay the difference. The amendments also required that as of January 1, 2005, Dresser retirees who had reached 65 years old and were eligible for Medicare would only be eligible for prescription drug coverage, and that all other medical benefits would be discontinued.

According to appeals court opinion , Halliburton amended the Dresser plan to “align the benefits in the three subplans more closely with the benefits provided to other Halliburton retirees,” but failed to make changes to the plans for its own active employees who were similarly situated.

Writing for the appeals court, Circuit Judge Carolyn King wrote: “We decline to allow Halliburton to unilaterally take away the ‘bargained-for rights’ that Dresser and Halliburton negotiated and made on the retiree program as a part of their merger agreement.”

Two Morgan Stanley Fund Firms Settle Litigation

April 21, 2005 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Two mutual fund companies operated by Morgan Stanley and one of its subsidiaries have settled class action suits alleging that the funds defrauded investors by overvaluing assets and have agreed to a total $41.5 million fine.

Van Kampen Prime Rate Income Trust, a Morgan Stanley subsidiary, agreed to the larger of the two pacts, for $31.5 million that disposed of a 2001 investor class action suit filed in US District Court in Chicago, involving the Van Kampen Senior Loan Fund, the Daily Business Review reported. The second agreement called for a $10-million payment, involved the Morgan Stanley Senior Loan Fund.

Each settlement sum represents the difference between what investors paid for their shares and what they would have paid if the shares had been fairly priced, said attorney Paul Geller.Geller and his colleagues examined the way share price is determined for a specific type of mutual fund called a senior loan fund. Senior loan funds are generally marketed as conservative investments that are similar to money markets or Treasury bills in their low level of risk.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The suits claimed that the net asset value of the funds was vastly overstated in two ways. According to the Daily Business Review report, in violation of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules, the funds allegedly failed to use market data that accurately valued the fund’s senior loans. Second, the fund assumed, without a reasonable basis that the senior loans were worth face value, rather than their current fair value. That’s the amount the loan would sell for. In some instances, the funds assumed face value for loans even when the underlying debtor corporation was bankrupt.

«