Are you ready for the cure?

The Clinton health-care plan will soon be unveiled. Here is an inside look at what it contains so far.     

The struggle over retiree medical benefits: who's on top?

Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of litigation addressing an employer's right to unilaterally amend or terminate medical benefits provided to retirees. The sheer volume of these cases and the variety of facts and legal theories have combined to obscure the patterns and trends that actually are emerging from this litigation. This article will describe the context of the struggle over retiree benefits and discuss those leading decisions in which the federal courts of appeals have established their rules for deciding retiree benefits cases.     

Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. London Residuary Body — The end of pragmatism or the beginning of reason?

Conclusion Whilst Lord Templeman seemed satisfied with the result of the decision in thePrudential case, Lord Browne-Wilkinson did not share his view. He said that the outcome of the case was unsatisfactory and did not accord with the agreement of the parties. He said No one has produced any satisfactory rationale for the genesis of this rule. No one has been able to point to any useful purpose that it serves at the present day and he urged the Law Commission to examine whether the rule should continue to operate in English law.The genesis of the rule was, it seems, satisfactorily described by Lord Templeman and its usefulness lies in the fact that it imposes a degree of certainty and reliability on the parties. Each knows from the outset what they have contracted for. Its failing lies in the fact that its operation, as Russell L.J. rightly pointed out, leads to a freely negotiated bargain being defeated. If the Law Commission does examine the rule then clearly the central issue will be the balancing of these two principles and which is to be given effect to. If the law wishes to see certainty and reliability in this area, then Lord Templeman's decision is undoubtedly welcome since the law was clearly in a state of flux and confusion before the case.