Re(2): 2004 13th. check IP: 64.12.117.20 Posted on December 20, 2007 at 02:31:43 AM by Larry Vincent
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I can why the Pension Letter has confused many Retirees. Let me try to put it into perspective.
There are two things that are holding up the payment of the 2004 13th. Check.
First, Atty. Cohen advised us all that the Board cannot pay the 13th. Check until the actuary audits the returns for 2004. The actuary has to certify their results and advise if the fund was in a loss or positive mode. The actuary is supposed to complete their audit prior to the January 24th pension board meeting. (According to Atty. Cohen) It should be avaiable to us all at the pb meeting.
Next, the Trustees cannot pay the 13th. Check at this time if they wanted to. According to Atty. Cohen, the matter is now under the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and the Judge, as per John Parkers' Lawsuit. Any agreement/settlement would have to be reviewed and acted on by the Judge. Atty. Cohen has filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit based on John Parker or his attorney not exausting their administrative remedies. The PB has taken the stance that John Parker or his Attorney should have brought the problem to the Trustees and asked them to pay the check. The Judge will need to rule on this Motion to Dismiss. This is the legal snag at this time.
I am hopeful that the above info is helpful and answers some of the questions. In reality, no one knows what the exact answers are at this time. I do feel that if the actuarys' audit is positive then the Trustees will pay the 2004 13th. Check. When is the question that is so uncertain at this time. I also feel that interest will be added to our checks. The interest period should be from June 30, 2004 until we get our checks. I am confident that these matters will be worked out and eventually we will get our checks.
One thing is for certain. Atty. Cohen has answered the question about whether an additional benefit can be paid even if there are still losses to be made up to the base fund. As you may recall, the previous legal opinion was that an additional benefit cannot be paid if the base fund is still owed money. Atty. Cohen made it clear that this is not part of Section 27 of the Contract or part of State Statute 112.61. Will keep all informed as additional info is obtained.
Larry Vincent
Replies: There have been no replies.
You must register before you can post on this board. You can register here.