| Posted By |
Message |
greenfreak
.
Member since 9/06 11483 total posts
Name:
greenfreak
|
It gets worse for previous AHM employees
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi delayed a decision Monday on whether more than 110 former employees of Melville-based American Home Mortgage are entitled to more than $23 million that they had set aside from their paychecks as retirement savings.
Lawyers for the bankrupt company were in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware Monday arguing that the money belongs to its more than 1,000 creditors, and not to the people who set it aside.
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzahm1002,0,7964034.story
The hits keep on comin. 
|
Posted 10/2/07 12:30 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource | Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate |
alnem
This is gonna be a good year!
Member since 2/06 9562 total posts
Name:
Emily
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
OMG thats nuts!  
|
| Posted 10/2/07 12:35 PM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
this is horrendous...
|
| Posted 10/2/07 12:51 PM |
| |
|
Maathy317
Grammie's Little Man
Member since 2/06 3235 total posts
Name:
D
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
What a shame.
|
| Posted 10/2/07 12:52 PM |
| |
|
SweetTooth
I'm a tired mommy!
Member since 12/05 20105 total posts
Name:
Lauren
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
That is so sad... I hope they do not win that case!
|
| Posted 10/2/07 12:57 PM |
| |
|
DRMom
Two in Blue
Member since 5/05 20223 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
That is not right at all. That should be illegal. How could that happen??
|
| Posted 10/2/07 1:17 PM |
| |
|
Pumpkin1
LIF Adult
Member since 12/05 3715 total posts
Name:
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
Posted by melijane
That is not right at all. That should be illegal. How could that happen??
This money is considered extra compensation ("deferred compensation") to its executives that they get because 401ks are capped.
|
| Posted 10/2/07 1:25 PM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
money that is vested is the property of the employee.
|
| Posted 10/2/07 1:29 PM |
| |
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name:
They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
Posted by Blu-ize
money that is vested is the property of the employee.
As, I believe, are all employee contributions even if the employee is not fully vested, no? Or am I wrong?
(I don't have matching - so I was fully vested from day one...)
|
| Posted 10/2/07 1:34 PM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
Posted by Kara
Posted by Blu-ize
money that is vested is the property of the employee.
As, I believe, are all employee contributions even if the employee is not fully vested, no? Or am I wrong?
(I don't have matching - so I was fully vested from day one...)
yes, but the money that the firm has contributed that is vested, is the employee's as well.
|
| Posted 10/2/07 1:57 PM |
| |
|
MrsSteflily
I love chocolate
Member since 4/06 2047 total posts
Name:
Stef
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
Just goes to show that you need to read the fine print when it comes to investing your money:
A "Questions and Answers" section 19 pages into the deferred compensation plan's 57-page enrollment kit says trust assets "are available to general creditors of the company in the case of the company's insolvency."
If it's in the plan, then they can legally do it.
I feel horrible for the employees.
|
| Posted 10/2/07 2:05 PM |
| |
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name:
They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
Posted by Blu-ize
Posted by Kara
Posted by Blu-ize
money that is vested is the property of the employee.
As, I believe, are all employee contributions even if the employee is not fully vested, no? Or am I wrong?
(I don't have matching - so I was fully vested from day one...)
yes, but the money that the firm has contributed that is vested, is the employee's as well.
Yes, I got that part. I just meant that the money the employees contributed is their property whether or not they are fully vested, correct?
Which means only employer contributions are fair game to take away from them, right? What about earnings on the money THEY contributed (not the employer matching)?
If they aren't fully vested, though, they wouldn't have gotten the money if they were otherwise laid off, right?
I'm just trying to figure out exactly what money they are trying to take form them. The OP sounds like they are trying to take their contributions -- which is shocking!
Those poor people.
|
| Posted 10/2/07 2:16 PM |
| |
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name:
They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: It gets worse for previous AHM employees
Posted by MrsSteflily
Just goes to show that you need to read the fine print when it comes to investing your money:
A "Questions and Answers" section 19 pages into the deferred compensation plan's 57-page enrollment kit says trust assets "are available to general creditors of the company in the case of the company's insolvency."
If it's in the plan, then they can legally do it.
I feel horrible for the employees.
Wow, very interesting.
So sad for those people.
|
| Posted 10/2/07 2:17 PM |
| |
|
