DOL Fiduciary Rule Mania: What's Happening and Where It's Headed

Analysis July 12, 2024 at 11:11 AM
Share & Print

What You Need To Know

  • Attempts to sink Labor's retirement security rule are in play in Congress and in the courts.
  • Despite this, lawyers say advisors should keep up with compliance.
  • Given the history of the fiduciary rule fight, any chance to overturn the rule will be in the courts, not Congress.
Melanie Waddell

If your eyes have been glazing over trying to keep up with the torrid pace of recent efforts to torpedo the Labor Department's new fiduciary rule, known officially as the retirement security rule, you're not alone.

Here's a rundown of where things stand now, what might happen next. The biggest takeaway for advisors: Be prepared to comply by Sept. 23, when the rule's initial requirements take effect.

Since Labor released the final rule on April 23, two lawsuits were filed against the rule in May and House lawmakers have introduced legislation to halt the rule. Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su told House lawmakers on May 1 that Labor's new fiduciary rule can withstand legal challenges.

While the two bills introduced to torpedo the rule passed out of their respective committees on Wednesday, industry watchers view the bills' chances of becoming law as slim.

"Given the history" of the fiduciary rule fight, any chances to overturn the rule are in the hands of the courts, as legislative moves are less likely to succeed, Micah Hauptman, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, told me in a recent email.

Lawmaker Moves and Lawsuits

The latest chapter of the legal battle over fiduciary advice goes back to Feb. 2, 2022, when the Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice, a group representing independent insurance agents who sell annuities and other income planning products, sued to block Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02, a regulation on rollover advice that was finalized during the Trump administration.

On May 2, FACC and several independent insurance agents sued Labor in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas over the new retirement security rule, seeking a preliminary injunction "to stop the new rule from taking effect" during FACC's case against PTE 2020-02.

In a second filing 20 days later, the plaintiffs argued that the retirement security rule would cause too much damage if it went into effect and that the court must delay its implementation until FACC's pending PTE case was resolved.

Nine insurance trade groups filed a lawsuit on May 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to overturn the rule. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Financial Services Institute joined the insurance groups' suit on June 29 via a plaintiff-intervenors' complaint.

On July 10, the House Education and Workforce Committee passed by a 23-18 vote a Congressional Review Act resolution to stop Labor's new fiduciary rule from taking effect.

The same day, the House Appropriations Committee approved by a 31-25 vote the fiscal year 2025 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill, which would prevent Labor from using any funds to administer, implement or enforce the  fiduciary rule and related prohibited transaction exemptions.

In mid-June, Labor filed a reply brief in the case filed by FACC.

"I thought that the reply brief was very solid," Fred Reish, partner at Faegre Drinker, said on a Broadridge webcast in early July. "The DOL did a great job of explaining why this [new rule] is not like the Obama-era rule. And certainly, if the court were a neutral court, without any particular philosophical approach to interpreting the law, they [DOL] would probably have muddied the water enough that it would be difficult for a stay to be granted."

However, the two judges in the two federal district courts in Texas "are very conservative judges" and have both made rulings that "might be viewed as anti-regulatory," Reish said. "So I think the outcome is really uncertain."

There are three options in the case filed by FACC, Reish said. "There is no stay; there's a national stay that would defer the effective date for everybody; or a stay that just applies to the plaintiffs in the case," Reish said. "I wouldn't make a bet on the outcome … I just don't know how you predict this."

Proceed With Compliance

Despite the efforts in Congress and the courts to sink the rule, lawyers are counseling advisors to stay the course with compliance.

Regarding the two lawsuits filed by insurance trade groups in May, "I would not at all count on a stay here — an injunction" of the rule, Joshua Waldbeser, partner at Faegre Drinker's Chicago office, said on the Broadridge webcast.

"I would proceed with compliance," Waldbeser advised, adding that he hopes advisors "would already be substantially in compliance and would not have a heavy lift" prior to Sept. 23, when the rule's impartial conduct standards and fiduciary acknowledgement are required.

At the same time, Waldbeser continued, "in order to ensure compliance with the impartial conduct standards, there's going to be a practical need to have some policies and procedures in place."

Hauptman agreed that advisors should move ahead with compliance.

"Financial professionals and firms shouldn't wait to come into compliance with the rule, based on the remote possibility that the rule may not go into effect," Hauptman said.

Phased Implementation

"It's important to remember that there is phased implementation of the rule," he said.

For the first year, "firms and financial professionals only need to satisfy the Impartial Conduct Standards and acknowledge that they are fiduciaries," Hauptman said.

The Impartial Conduct Standards "require fiduciaries to give prudent and loyal (i.e. best interest) advice, charge no more than is reasonable for their services, and not make misleading statements. These shouldn't be difficult requirements for firms and financial professionals who are doing right by their clients and customers," Hauptman said.

'Still Providing Bad Advice'

Hauptman relayed that he "didn't imagine the [new fiduciary] rule would face the same opposition that it did in 2016."

Such opposition "suggests many firms and financial professionals are still providing bad advice that is tainted by conflicts of interest. Otherwise, if they were providing best interest advice, they wouldn't have a problem complying and wouldn't put up this kind of fight," Hauptman maintained.

The Consumer Federation of America released a "fact sheet" highlighting statement by "self-serving insurance industry opponents" to the court in the current litigation.

I know you'll be watching what happens next, and so will I.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center