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.
After nearly a month of regulatory machinations and behind-the-scenes lobbying, the Department of Labor has released a proposed rule that would delay the “applicability date” of its recently enacted “conflict of interest” (or “fiduciary”) regulation (the “Fiduciary Rule”). The 60-day delay in the applicability of the Fiduciary Rule would have only an indirect effect on employers, but is of great interest to investment advisors and other service providers.
On Friday, February, 3, 2017, President Trump issued a Memorandum directing the Secretary of Labor to “re-examine” the Department of Labor’s final regulation defining “fiduciary” investment advice (sometimes referred to as the “Fiduciary Rule” or the “Conflict of Interest Rule”), and to consider whether the Rule should be revised or rescinded. The Rule, which significantly expands the circumstances under which an individual becomes a “fiduciary” by reason of providing investment advice for a fee, was finalized in April of 2016, and technically became effective last July, but was drafted such that its provisions generally do not become “applicable” to financial advisers until April 10, 2017.
In December, the Division of Investment Management of the Securities and Exchange Commission issued Guidance Update No. 2016-06. The Update provides disclosure and procedural guidance to address potential issues for mutual funds responding to the Department of Labor’s adoption of the Conflict of Interest Rule. To address concerns by financial intermediaries that variations in mutual fund sales loads may violate the Rule, Funds are exploring various options, including changing fee structures and creating new share classes. Such changes may impact fiduciary decisions regarding a plan’s investments and compensation arrangements.
After years of effort, the Department of Labor released final rules on April 6, 2016, that will substantially alter the way investment advice is provided to ERISA plans, their participants, and even non-ERISA IRAs.
The United States Supreme Court gave considerable comfort to defined contribution plan participants – and their lawyers – who sue plan fiduciaries for failing to keep track of plan investment options. In a unanimous decision handed down on May 18, 2015, the Court held in Tibble v. Edison International that ERISA fiduciaries have a “continuing duty” to monitor investment options, and that plan participants have six years from the date of an alleged violation of that duty to file a lawsuit against the plan’s fiduciaries. This ruling significantly undercuts the utility of a statute of limitations defense that had been successfully deployed by plan fiduciaries in previous cases, and creates fertile ground for more litigation.
The well-publicized cyber-attack on Anthem, Inc.’s information technology system may require employers to take prompt action to protect the rights of their health plan participants. Although neither the scope nor the cause of the security breach has yet been determined, the attack has been described as both “massive” and “sophisticated.”