Inc., 898 F.2d 1096, 1100 (5th Cir.1990) (“We accord no deference to the [plan administrator’s] conclusions as to the controlling law, which involve statutory interpretation.”) ERISA’s anti-cutback rule provides, with certain exceptions not relevant here, that “[t]he accrued benefit of a participant under a plan may not be decreased by an amendment of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g)(1). The rule applies to the participant’s basic accrued benefit, as well as to accrued early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional forms of benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g)(2). Such benefits may only be eliminated or reduced by amendment on a prospective basis, i.e., with respect to benefits that have not yet accrued. See, e.g., Campbell v. BankBoston, 327 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). This case is unique because Plaintiffs are
holding that an erisa violation accrued each time faulty investment contracts were renewed because erisa fiduciaries had a continuing duty to review plan investments holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa holding that elimination of a future expected benefit that has not yet accrued does not constitute an erisa violation holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans