[LuckyInOC]

A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

The relationship and context IMO has everything to do with whether or not it is commanding or requesting.

In the OP’s issue, the relationship is a mutual relationship to complete a common goal of a service nature. Both are on equal grounds. Both parties should assume that any request from the service provider is a requirement to complete the service and therefore adding ‘please’ would be just polite.

To be perfectly clear, the requester should have the obligation to the receiver to state whether or not the form is a requirement to provide the service or voluntary. Again, if it is a requirement then ‘please’ is just being polite.

It could best said:

“Please sign and return this required form.”
or
“Please sign and return this voluntary form.”

The adjective ‘required’ or ‘voluntary’ provides the context to the verbs ‘sign and return’ as to whether or not it is a command (requirement) or a request (voluntary). Either way, the receiver should not be offended but would understand the importance of the form.

‘Please’ is just an polite adverb.

Luck In OC

[LuckyInOC]

The relationship and context IMO has everything to do with whether or not it is commanding or requesting.

In the OP’s issue, the relationship is a mutual relationship to complete a common goal of a service nature. Both are on equal grounds. Both parties should assume that any request from the service provider is a requirement to complete the service and therefore adding ‘please’ would be just polite.

To be perfectly clear, the requester should have the obligation to the receiver to state whether or not the form is a requirement to provide the service or voluntary. Again, if it is a requirement then ‘please’ is just being polite.

It could best said:

“Please sign and return this required form.”
or
“Please sign and return this voluntary form.”

The adjective ‘required’ or ‘voluntary’ provides the context to the verbs ‘sign and return’ as to whether or not it is a command (requirement) or a request (voluntary). Either way, the receiver should not be offended but would understand the importance of the form.

‘Please’ is just an polite adverb.

Luck In OC

[LuckyInOC]

The relationship and context IMO has everything to do with whether or not it is commanding or requesting.

In the OP’s issue, the relationship is a mutual relationship to complete a common goal of a service nature. Both are on equal grounds. Both parties should assume that any request from the service provider is a requirement to complete the service and therefore adding ‘please’ would be just polite.

To be perfectly clear, the requester should have the obligation to the receiver to state whether or not the form is a requirement to provide the service or voluntary. Again, if it is a requirement then ‘please’ is just being polite.

It could best said:

“Please sign and return this required form.”
or
“Please sign and return this voluntary form.”

The adjective ‘required’ or ‘voluntary’ provides the context to the verbs ‘sign and return’ as to whether or not it is a command (requirement) or a request (voluntary). Either way, the receiver should not be offended but would understand the importance of the form.

‘Please’ is just an polite adverb.

Luck In OC

[LuckyInOC]

The relationship and context IMO has everything to do with whether or not it is commanding or requesting.

In the OP’s issue, the relationship is a mutual relationship to complete a common goal of a service nature. Both are on equal grounds. Both parties should assume that any request from the service provider is a requirement to complete the service and therefore adding ‘please’ would be just polite.

To be perfectly clear, the requester should have the obligation to the receiver to state whether or not the form is a requirement to provide the service or voluntary. Again, if it is a requirement then ‘please’ is just being polite.

It could best said:

“Please sign and return this required form.”
or
“Please sign and return this voluntary form.”

The adjective ‘required’ or ‘voluntary’ provides the context to the verbs ‘sign and return’ as to whether or not it is a command (requirement) or a request (voluntary). Either way, the receiver should not be offended but would understand the importance of the form.

‘Please’ is just an polite adverb.

Luck In OC

[LuckyInOC]

The relationship and context IMO has everything to do with whether or not it is commanding or requesting.

In the OP’s issue, the relationship is a mutual relationship to complete a common goal of a service nature. Both are on equal grounds. Both parties should assume that any request from the service provider is a requirement to complete the service and therefore adding ‘please’ would be just polite.

To be perfectly clear, the requester should have the obligation to the receiver to state whether or not the form is a requirement to provide the service or voluntary. Again, if it is a requirement then ‘please’ is just being polite.

It could best said:

“Please sign and return this required form.”
or
“Please sign and return this voluntary form.”

The adjective ‘required’ or ‘voluntary’ provides the context to the verbs ‘sign and return’ as to whether or not it is a command (requirement) or a request (voluntary). Either way, the receiver should not be offended but would understand the importance of the form.

‘Please’ is just an polite adverb.

Luck In OC

[Author]

Posts