Beware the Broker: Fifth Circuit Vacates the DOL Fiduciary Rule

In April 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), under the Administration of President Obama, issued the “Fiduciary Rule”, which reinterpreted the term “investment advice fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Dkt. No. 17-10238 (5th Cir. March 15, 2018), Plaintiffs, several business/industry groups, filed suit in the District Court of the Northern District of Texas, challenging the DOL rule. The Plaintiff made several arguments in support of their position that the Fiduciary Rule should be vacated: 1) the rule is inconsistent with governing statutes; 2) the DOL overreached to regulate service providers beyon

Think Your Settlement in Another Court Won’t be Subjected to OPRA? Think Again.

Most public employers and employees in the State of New Jersey are familiar with OPRA, or the Open Public Records Act. It is the State law that governs the public’s access to government records. But what happens when a case involving a public entity is settled in a foreign – or non-New Jersey State – court? Does OPRA still govern access to the settlement? This is the issue recently addressed by the Superior Court of New Jersey in Evening Journal Ass’n v. City of Bayonne, Dkt. No. L-2013-17 (Super. Ct., Law Div. 2018). By way of background, a civil complaint was filed against the City of Bayonne in NJ Federal District Court by citizens claiming that the City’s police, when making an arrest, u

NLRB Vacates its Decision in Hy-Brand, Reinstating Browning-Ferris

As was discussed in a previous blog post, which can be found HERE, on December 14th, the NLRB in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors overturned its decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) (“Browning-Ferris”) in a 3-2 decision. Thereafter, on February 26, 2018, the NLRB vacated its decision in Hy-Brand, thereby reinstating Browning-Ferris. The Board's Agency Ethics Official determined that one of the members who voted in favor of overturning Browning-Ferris was disqualified from voting. More specifically, Board Member William Emmanuel was previously an attorney and partner at a law firm that participated in the original Browning-Ferris case. Thus, as of now, Browning-Ferri

Supreme Court Heard Oral Argument in Janus on February 26, 2018

As was previously discussed in a blog post, found HERE, United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 851 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2017), which threatens to upend 40 years of history allowing public employee unions to require non-members to pay agency fees. Oral argument was heard by the Court on February 26, 2018. Transcript from the oral argument can be found HERE. Zazzali Law will keep you updated about the case as it unfolds.

Recent Posts
Archive

©2018 Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman. Blog is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between the Zazzali Law Firm and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of the Zazzali Law Firm.

Offices in Newark and Trenton, New Jersey & New York                         973.623.1822                             

attorneys@zazzali-law.com

©2019 Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman. Reproduction of the content in the web site in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of the Zazzali Law Firm.

 

This web site is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between the Zazzali Law Firm and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Before making your choice of attorney, you should give this matter careful thought. The selection of an attorney is an important decision.

 

This web site constitutes an ADVERTISEMENT. If you believe this web site is inaccurate or misleading, you may report same to the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Hughes Justice Complex, CN 037, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.