Coronavirus (COVID-19) News and Resources
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Webcasts
Subscribe to Free Daily Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

ESOP Administrator
Blue Ridge ESOP Associates logo
Blue Ridge ESOP Associates
(Charlottesville VA / Telecommute)
Retirement Plan Consultant
Cetera Retirement Plan Specialists logo
Cetera Retirement Plan Specialists
401(k) Associate
Blue Ridge ESOP Associates logo
Blue Ridge ESOP Associates
(Charlottesville VA / Telecommute)
Retirement Plan Administrator
SPS logo
Retirement Plan Administrator
Steidle Pension Solutions, LLC logo
Steidle Pension Solutions, LLC
(Lebanon (Hunterdon County) NJ)

Free Daily News and Jobs

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Get the BenefitsLink app LinkedIn

<< Previous news item   |   Next news item >>

"In support of their request for a stay, the defendants also noted that the Trump administration has indicated that it will modify or eliminate the challenged regulations. In denying the motion for a stay, the district court concluded: [1] The participants' claims relied on the Section 1557 statute itself, rather than the Section 1557 final regulations.... [2] A stay would not simplify the issues in question or reduce the parties' litigation burden.... The participants in this litigation also appear to have contemplated new regulations in the 1557 space, and argued that their claims are based on the Section 1557 statute and therefore would not 'rise and fall' with the existence or enforceability of the current Section 1557 regulations." [Boyden v. Conlin, No. 17-264 (W.D. Wis. May 11, 2018)]
Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the link above).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® is providing a hypertext link to the item shown above, but is not the author of the item (unless otherwise specified).
© 2020, Inc.