As businesses return to work after Labor Day 2021, a principal focus for companies that serve US retirement plans will be the impending December 20 enforcement date for the Labor Department’s (DOL) latest fiduciary guidance under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). As previously reported, Rule 3.0, adopted in December 2020:
Expanded the circumstances in which rollover advice would, at least in DOL’s view, constitute ERISA fiduciary advice, effective February 16, 2021;
adopted PTE 2020-02, providing exemptive relief for conflicted investment advice provided by financial institutions and their investment professionals; and
as of December 20, 2021, sunset DOL’s existing temporary enforcement policy for conflicted investment advice, adopted after the vacatur of Rule 2.0, with the result that financial institutions will require a permanent compliance solution thereafter.
Extension of the temporary enforcement policy. As of this writing, financial services firms generally have evaluated Rule 3.0 and charted a path forward in light of that guidance, but a number have deferred implementation in the entirely reasonable hope of an extension of the temporary enforcement policy particularly in light of DOL’s announced plans to modify this guidance (future Rule 4.0).
An extension of DOL’s temporary enforcement policy, optimally to dovetail with the planned new guidance, is certainly warranted; it seems difficult to justify compelling firms to spend the resources to comply with Rule 3.0 in 2021, just to compel a do-over with a new Rule 4.0 in 2022 or 2023.
The temporary enforcement policy requires compliance with DOL’s impartial conduct standards, so that safeguard for plan participants would remain in effect during any extension, including in the rollover setting.
DOL has a history of waiting until very late in the game to extend a compliance date, so it remains possible that DOL still could take that action later this year.
Solutions for rollover advice. In the absence of further direction from DOL, it now has become incumbent on firms to accelerate their Rule 3.0 compliance project if the December 20 date is to be met, and in particular to implement PTE 2020-02 or an alternative solution if they are or may be serving as a fiduciary in rollover interactions. See our paper on the array of compliance solutions for rollover advice for more information.
Rule 3.0 necessitates attention to (i) rollover advice and (ii) any other circumstance in which a provider has been relying on the temporary enforcement policy since 2018.
For firms intending to transition to PTE 2020-02 for rollover advice, our understanding is that obtaining reliable plan expense information for the rollover comparison has emerged as a significant roadblock for which effective solutions are still works in progress. For this and other reasons, what effectively became a ten-month transition period (from the February 12 press release announcing that Rule 3.0 would take effect notwithstanding the change in Administrations) is proving inadequate to fully and properly operationalize compliance with PTE 2020-02.
Prospects for Rule 4.0. It is of course daunting to operationalize the Rule 3.0 compliance solution that will best serve a firm’s retirement investors, investment professionals and business interests without advance knowledge of Rule 4.0, but it seems that has now become unavoidable. In DOL’s most recent regulatory agenda, proposed Rule 4.0 was slotted for December 2021 - behind eight other guidance projects, six of which have yet to be published. The projected dates in DOL’s regulatory agenda often prove to be ambitious.
The Fifth Circuit opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. DOL vacating Rule 2.0 leaves little if any room for an expansion of the regulatory definition, but the April FAQs and latest regulatory agenda signaled that DOL is considering that step. As stated in the regulatory agenda:
This rulemaking would amend the regulatory definition of the term fiduciary …. [Rule 4.0] would take into account practices of investment advisers, and the expectations of plan officials and participants, and IRA owners who receive investment advice, as well as developments in the investment marketplace, including in the ways advisers are compensated that can subject advisers to harmful conflicts of interest.
It seems predictable that any expansion would at least seek (i) more generally to treat rollover advice as fiduciary advice and (ii) to limit financial service providers’ flexibility to designate the ERISA status of an investment arrangement for retirement investors
Add the impartial conduct standards to the following PTEs, among other possible modifications
PTE 84-24
Sale of insurance products and proprietary mutual funds
PTE 75-1
Parts III, IV: underwritings and market making
PTE 77-4
Discretionary investment manager allocation to proprietary mutual funds
PTE 80-83
Use of proceeds from sale of securities to reduce or retire indebtedness
PTE 83-1
Mortgage pool investment trusts
PTE 86-128
Commissions for the execution of securities transactions by a fiduciary; agency cross-transactions
Withdraw the following PTE
PTE 75-1
Part II(2): Purchase of nonproprietary mutual funds
Based on the April FAQs, Rule 4.0 might also be expected to address the following two points.
Provide more guidance on how the ERISA standards differ from best interest standards under other laws
The April FAQs suggest that, following the change in Administrations, DOL is seeing more distance between its impartial conduct standards and the best interest standards under other bodies of law that PTE 2020-02 specifically leveraged. Further elaboration of this point might be expected in Rule 4.0, which could have a material bearing on Rule 3.0 compliance choices and implementation.
For example, the April FAQs focus on the “dangers” to investors created by certain compensation practices, a concern which is reiterated in the regulatory agenda.
DOL could take a harder line on what practices constitute conflicts that cannot be effectively neutralized, and instead must be eliminated, similar to its stance in Rule 2.0.
Consider adding a fiduciary acknowledgement to other PTEs
In 2016, DOL included a fiduciary acknowledgement in its vacated Best Interest Contract Exemption but not in its modification of any existing PTE.
We continue to think that requiring a fiduciary acknowledgement is the wrong policy call in any of these PTEs.
Given the factual and legal uncertainties of the 5-part fiduciary definition, it goes too far to demand that financial institutions – rarely in a position to know with certainty the specifics of every interaction between an investment professional and a retirement investor – always to commit to that status in advance as a condition for exemptive relief, when a hindsight examination might show that status did not obtain. In Rule 3.0, DOL exacerbated the longstanding “inadvertent fiduciary” risk; if a firm perceives a need to observe a PTE to manage that risk, DOL should encourage that practice, not discourage it by compelling the firm to concede the fiduciary issue.
Substantive compliance with the impartial conduct standards is far more important to DOL’s purposes.
So long as the exemption requires compliance with the impartial conduct standards, DOL’s objective that the retirement investor’s interest comes first would be achieved.
A fiduciary acknowledgement adds nothing to the substantive outcome.
Contrary to DOL’s defense of the fiduciary acknowledgement in PTE 2020-02, the evidence shows that fiduciary status per se has little import for retirement investors and their expectations.
While the fiduciary acknowledgement eases DOL’s burden in its enforcement activity, it unavoidably introduces the risk of creating a private right of action for IRAs, notwithstanding DOL’s stated intent that it not do so.
It must be said, however, that even if a financial services provider makes reasonable advance guesses about where Rule 4.0 might go, any of the foregoing changes, in broad scope and/or in their details, could materially change that firm’s calculus as to its best approach to ERISA compliance as currently informed only by Rule 3.0.
For more information
For resources and commentary regarding this regulatory process, visit Eversheds Sutherland’s dolfiduciaryrule.com.
Text of and supporting materials for Proposal 1.0, vacated Rule 2.0, and final Rule 3.0
Articles, presentations and client alerts
Pleadings in the litigations challenging Rule 2.0
Videocasts about Rule 2.0 and other matters
_____
If you have any questions about this legal alert, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed under Related People/Contributors or the Eversheds Sutherland attorney with whom you regularly work.
Eversheds Sutherland takes all reasonable care to ensure that the materials, information and documents, including but not limited to articles, newsletters, reports and blogs ("Materials") on the Eversheds Sutherland website are accurate and complete. However, the Materials are provided for general information purposes only, not for the purpose of providing legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the present law or regulations. The Materials should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. The Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments. The content and interpretation of the Materials and the law addressed in the Materials are subject to revision.
No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the Materials and therefore the Materials should not be relied upon. Eversheds Sutherland disclaims all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of the Materials to the fullest extent permitted by law. The Materials are not intended to be comprehensive or to include advice on which you may rely. You should always consult a suitably qualified Lawyer/Attorney on any specific legal matter.
Any views expressed through the Materials are the views of the individual author and may not reflect the views of Eversheds Sutherland or any other individual Lawyer/Attorney.
The future of Financial Services - Decoding AI: Episode 6
legal updates
The future of Financial Services - Decoding AI: Episode 5
legal updates
Final regulations address domestically controlled qualified investment entities
legal updates
SALT Scoreboard - Quarter 1, 2024
Latest News
media mentions
Newsom's May Budget Revision Takes Aim at Microsoft Decision
firm news
Advising DEUTZ AG on the financing for the acquisition of the sales and service business of selected off-highway engines from Rolls Royce Power Systems AG
media mentions
Ascension hospitals remain operational as cyberattack continues, keeps systems down
firm news
Eversheds Sutherland Advises Kalamata.com on Closing Securitization of Up to $500 Million to Provide Financing for Small Businesses
Latest Events
virtual | May 21, 2024
Immigration UK – Right to work 2024
virtual | May 22, 2024
Ireland & Northern Ireland employment law
virtual | June 05, 2024
Introduction to Swiss employment law
virtual | June 18, 2024
Cross border working - international remote working and international assignments