U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS › Subtitle Subtitle B— Regulatory Provisions › Part part 5— administration and enforcement

29 U.S.C. § 1135

Regulations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to subchapter II and section 1029 of this title, the Secretary may prescribe such regulations as he finds necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this subchapter. Among other things, such regulations may define accounting, technical and trade terms used in such provisions; may prescribe forms; and may provide for the keeping of books and records, and for the inspection of such books and records (subject to section 1134(a) and (b) of this title).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “§ 4975 (c)(2), and to “define accounting, technical and trade terms” that appear in both laws, 29 U.S.C. § 1135 . Title II did not create a federal right of action for IRA owners, but state law and other remedies remain available to those investors.”
Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 U.S. 936 (2016). · cites it 2× “” Ante, at 8; see 29 U. S. C. §1135 . Moreover, the Secretary “is authorized to undertake re- search and surveys and in connection therewith to collect, compile, analyze and publish data, information, and sta- tistics relating to employee benefit plans, including re- tirement,…”
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “” For example, 29 U.S.C. § 1135 states that “the Secretary [of Labor] may prescribe such regulations as he finds necessary or appropriate to carry out [certain] provisions” of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.”
Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (1985). · cites it 2× “894 , 29 U. S. C. § 1135 . [12] In light of this holding, we do not reach any question concerning the extent to which § 409 may authorize recovery of extracontractual compensatory or punitive damages from a fiduciary by a plan.”
Halo v. Yale Health Plan, Dir. of Benefits & Records Yale Univ., 819 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2016). “2008), we use the terms interchangeably in this discussion.”
Chamber of Com. of the United States v. Hugler, 231 F. Supp. 3d 152 (N.D. Tex. 2017). · cites it 5× “29 U.S.C. § 1135 . . ERISA defines fiduciary in the same way under Title I and Title II.”
Reich v. Valley Nat'l Bank of Arizona, 837 F. Supp. 1259 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). · cites it 4× “Title 29 U.S.C. § 1135 , ERISA § 505, which delegates authority to the Department of Labor to promulgate regulations relating to technical terms, provides that “the Secretary may prescribe such regulations as he finds necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this…”
Nat'l Ass'n for Fixed Annuities v. United States Dep't of Labor, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “29 U.S.C. § 1135 . As a matter of ordinary usage, moreover, there can be no serious dispute that someone who provides “[a] recommendation as to the advisability- of acquiring, holding, disposing of, or exchanging, securities or other investment property,” 29 C.”
In Re: David Warren Watson, Debtor. David Warren Watson v. James Proctor Cent. Bank Suzanne Nebeker, 161 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “The Department of Labor regulations, issued pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1135 , provide in pertinent part: (b) Plans without employees.”
James L. McCoy Adm'r of the Elec. Workers Trust Funds, Etc. v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1991). “As support for this allegation, they note that the Secretary of Labor has authority to issue regulations defining certain terms in the ERISA statute, see 29 U.S.C. § 1135 ; and that, utilizing this power, the Secretary promulgated a regulation, 29 C.”
Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107 (1989). “It is unlikely that Congress intended to subject to ERISA’s reporting and disclosure requirements those vacation benefits which by their nature are payable on a regular basis from the general assets of the employer and are accumulated over time only at the election of the…”
Mem'l Hosp. Sys. v. Northbrook Life Ins. Co., 904 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1990). “29 U.S.C. § 1135 ; 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3 — l(j) (1987).”
Show all 131 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.