Cyberattacks have managed to invade all walks of life, and employee benefit plans are no exception. When a plan is attacked, the fallout can be overwhelmingly expensive and burdensome to correct. Many plan sponsors are purchasing cyber liability insurance coverage to supplement their data security measures. Understanding those policies – and their exclusions – is important for sponsors who are exploring such coverage.
On April 18, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposal package that includes two new rules and one interpretative release. The package consists of three components – Regulation Best Interest, Investment Adviser Standard of Conduct Interpretation, and Form CRS – Relationship Summary. According to the SEC, the proposal is intended to balance investor protections and regulatory requirements with investor access and choice. Each component of the proposal is available for public comment for 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.
In a series of three articles, Spencer Fane LLP describes the SEC’s proposal and potential impacts on broker-dealers and investment advisers. This third article describes the Form CRS – Relationship Summary portion of the SEC’s fiduciary proposal.
In an open meeting on April 18, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted four to one to issue two new rules and one interpretative release that are intended to provide investor protections and regulatory clarity, as well as investor access and choice. Specifically, the SEC issued Regulation Best Interest, Investment Adviser Standard of Conduct Interpretation, and Form CRS – Relationship Summary. Each component of the SEC’s proposal is available for public comment for 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. In a series of three articles, Spencer Fane LLP describes the SEC’s proposal and potential impacts on broker-dealers and investment advisers. This first article describes the Regulation Best Interest portion of the SEC’s fiduciary proposal.
In a significant blow to the Department of Labor’s controversial regulation re-defining what constitutes an investment-advice fiduciary, a split three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on March 15 that the DOL exceeded its authority when creating the rule. The 2-1 decision of the appellate court strikes down the regulation and its associated prohibited transaction exemptions in their entirety. (Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dept. of Labor (5th Cir. March 15, 2018)). In its wake, the court’s decision leaves even more of the confusion that has plagued the DOL’s 2016 rulemaking.
The Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission have expressed concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest that investment advisers do not explicitly disclosed. Thus, plan fiduciaries may not be aware of such conflicts when they engage and monitor their plan’s investment consultant. These concerns were recently highlighted when the SEC launched an initiative in connection with investment advisers’ selection or recommendation of a higher-cost mutual fund share class for their clients when a lower-cost share class of the same fund is available. The SEC’s initiative reminds plan fiduciaries of the importance of obtaining appropriate information to fulfill their fiduciary obligations when engaging and monitoring investment advisers.
The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced a temporary program for investment advisers who may have inadequately disclosed potential conflicts of interest related to their selection or recommendation of mutual fund share classes. Participation in the program, however, is not without its drawbacks.
On November 29, 2017, the Department of Labor granted an extension of the transition period for the Fiduciary Rule’s Best Interest Contact Exemption and Principal Transaction Exemption, and delayed the applicability date of the amendments to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24. The new transition period will end on July 1, 2019, rather than January 1, 2018. The Department also extended the temporary enforcement policy in Field Assistance Bulletin 2017-02 to July 1, 2019. Thus, financial institutions and advisers impacted by the Fiduciary Rule and related exemptions remain subject to the same requirements as they have been since June 9, 2017, when the Fiduciary Rule and the Impartial Conduct Standards became applicable.
According to U.S. Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule will become effective on June 9th. As discussed in our May 9th article, the Rule’s expanded definition of “fiduciary” will apply, and advisers and financial institutions providing investment advice as fiduciaries must comply with the Rule’s “impartial conduct” standards, beginning on June 9, 2017. At this time, the full scope of the Fiduciary Rule and its related prohibited transaction exemptions will be applicable on January 1, 2018.
For investment advisers and financial institutions, the countdown to compliance with the Department of Labor’s new “conflict of interest” rule ends on June 9, 2017. The Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a final rule on April 7, 2017, that delays the original applicability date of its conflict of interest regulation (the “Fiduciary Rule”) and its related prohibited transaction exemptions for 60 days, creating a “Transition Period” that starts on June 9, 2017, and ends on December 31, 2017.
The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has proposed to delay for 60 days the “applicability date” of the Fiduciary Rule (“Rule”), and the new and revised prohibited transaction exemptions related to the Rule. The proposed delay has created confusion within the financial services industry because it is not certain that a final rule implementing the delay can be published (and become effective) before the Rule’s April 10th applicability date. In response to the confusion, the DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2017-01 (“Bulletin”) announcing a temporary enforcement policy that assures advisers and financial institutions that the DOL will not seek to enforce the Rule or the related prohibited transaction exemptions in the event the Rule becomes applicable before it is officially delayed.