Joshua Waldbeser
Joshua J. Waldbeser counsels plan sponsors and committees with respect to their fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA, as well as design and operational considerations for 401(k) plans, ESOPs and other defined contribution plans, cash balance and traditional defined benefit plans, and deferred compensation arrangements of all types. Josh also works extensively with insurance companies, investment advisors and funds, banks and trust companies, broker-dealers, record keepers, TPAs and other service providers with respect to ERISA, tax, securities and other compliance matters, including investment and fiduciary issues, as well as prohibited transactions and exemptions.
View the full bio for Joshua Waldbeser at the Faegre Drinker website.
Articles by Joshua Waldbeser:
Investigating financial service providers to 401(k), 403(b) and other retirement plans for compliance with ERISA remains an area of focus for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Employee Benefits Security Administration.
Join members of Faegre Drinker’s ERISA financial services team on April 27 from noon to 1:00 p.m. CT, as we explore what registered investment advisers can expect if they are selected for an investigation and best practices for getting through an investigation and negotiating a favorable resolution as quickly and painlessly as possible. While the focus will be on RIAs, this session should be informative for broker-dealers and dual registrants as well.
Continue reading “Upcoming Webinar | DOL Investigations of Registered Investment Advisers Under ERISA – What Should You Know? What Can You Do?”
The Department of Labor (DOL) confirmed on February 12 that the Trump-era Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02 (PTE) would go into effect as scheduled on February 16, 2021. The PTE will likely affect the business of broker-dealers that regularly make investment recommendations to IRA owners, as well as retirement plans and their participants (including rollover recommendations). This is due in part to the requirements of the PTE itself, but also because the rulemaking includes new interpretations that will expand the circumstances under which broker-dealers and their associated persons will be deemed to be advice fiduciaries. (The exemption refers to broker-dealers as “financial institutions” and their associated persons as “investment professionals” and this article uses those terms.)
As a result of these changes, broker-dealers need to re-evaluate whether and when they (and their investment professionals) may be fiduciaries, and where they are fiduciaries, they need to develop compliant practices, policies and procedures.
Continue reading “Broker-Dealer Services to Plans and IRAs: Impact of the DOL Fiduciary Advice Exemption”
On June 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its ruling on the challenge to the legality of the Regulation Best Interest final rule (Reg BI), promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As reported on June 2, 2020, the Second Circuit entertained oral argument. It issued its ruling late in the day on June 26, just prior to Reg BI’s June 30, 2020, implementation date two business days later.
The Second Circuit’s ruling had three holdings: (1) the individual investment adviser petitioner had standing to bring the petition to review, but the state petitioners did not; (2) section 913(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act authorized the SEC to promulgate Reg BI; and (3) Reg BI is not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We focus the analysis herein on the latter two holdings.
Continue reading “The Second Circuit Upholds Reg BI”
The SEC has issued guidance addressing the Form CRS. The first is a Risk Alert from the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) indicating that OCIE will be looking for good faith compliance when it conducts examinations after the June 30, 2020 Form CRS compliance date. The second includes additional FAQs providing clarification on delivery and filing requirements along with several other topical areas. We discuss the examination guidance and the FAQs in more detail in an alert on our website for those looking for more in-depth analysis. Also, note that the CRS Risk Alert was issued concurrently with a similar Alert on Reg BI examinations in general, which is the subject of a separate post on this site.
As SEC Chairman Clayton previously indicated, the compliance date of Form CRS will not be extended, but the “initial” examinations will focus on whether firms made “a good faith effort to implement Form CRS.” While emphasizing that the Risk Alert is not intended to serve as an explanation of Form CRS requirements, OCIE explains that its initial examinations may include assessment of compliance with the following areas:
Continue reading “SEC Examination Guidelines and FAQs on Form CRS”
On April 7, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) issued a Risk Alert providing guidance for the SEC’s post–June 30, 2020, examinations of firms’ compliance with Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI). This guidance is covered more fully in our Client Alert of April 13, 2020.
In an effort to present transparency in its prospective examination for Reg BI compliance, OCIE’s Risk Alert includes a three-page Appendix that provides an example of an OCIE Reg BI examination document and information request list. OCIE encourages firms to use the documents listed in the Appendix to assess their implementation plans for Reg BI. Firms should study this exemplar request list closely.
Continue reading “The Word Is Out on SEC Examinations for Reg BI Compliance – the OCIE Risk Alert”
The overturning of the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule by the Fifth Circuit last year had two impacts: first, the definition of “fiduciary” for investment advice to plans and IRAs reverted back to the narrower Five-Part Test issued in 1975; second, the Best Interest Contract Exemption (or “BIC Exemption”) and amendments to other exemptions also ceased to exist.
Continue reading “The DOL’s Temporary Enforcement Policy: Potential Traps for the Unwary”
If you thought that avoiding fiduciary status would be a slam-dunk after the “new” DOL fiduciary advice rule was vacated, think again. The DOL’s old fiduciary regulation is back and it casts an unexpectedly wide net.
Let’s start with the background. The reinstated fiduciary definition says that a broker-dealer and its advisor (a “broker”) are fiduciaries to a plan if a functional five-part test is satisfied: (1) the broker provides advice about investments for a fee or other compensation, (2) on a regular basis, (3) under a mutual understanding, (4) that the advice will form a primary basis for the plan’s decisions, and (5) that the advice is individualized based upon the plan’s particular needs. For this purpose, a “plan” includes not only an ERISA plan, but also an IRA. (In the context of IRAs, being a fiduciary under the five-part test does not itself implicate a standard of care, but does apply to the applicability of certain prohibited transactions.)
Continue reading “Fiduciary Status for the Unwary”
In a previous post, we discussed why broker-dealers and their representatives will likely still be fiduciaries to ERISA plans and IRA investors in many cases despite the DOL Fiduciary Rule’s impending death (we say “impending” because, while the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in mid-March vacates the Fiduciary Rule in its entirety, the court’s official order implementing this decision has yet to be issued). To review, this is because broker-dealers and their representatives often satisfy all the prongs of the soon-to-be reinstated 1975 fiduciary regulation’s “Five-Part Test” defining when investment recommendations rise to the level of “fiduciary” advice. Previous industry assumptions that brokers and other “sellers” of investments generally were not fiduciaries under the 1975 regulation should no longer be relied upon. In this post, we’ll examine how the Fiduciary Rule’s impending demise will affect prohibited transaction and compensation issues for broker-dealers in light of their likely continuing status as fiduciaries. Continue reading “Why Fiduciary Status Still Matters in a Post-Fiduciary Rule World: A Look at Prohibited Transactions And Compensation”
The “old” rules will again prevail—but the old rules will not be applied in the old ways, and this will have some significant impacts on broker-dealers.
As the DOL has not asked for a rehearing of the Fifth Circuit’s decision vacating the Fiduciary Rule, or yet sought to appeal the decision, it is widely anticipated that the March 15 ruling will soon take effect, restoring the DOL’s 1975 regulation defining fiduciary investment advice to plan and IRA investors (we say “widely anticipated” because, while the official mandate vacating the Fiduciary Rule is expected soon, it has been delayed while the court considers efforts from certain states and other third parties to intervene in the case). While the SEC has proposed new regulations for broker-dealers, and while we expect the DOL to propose new prohibited transaction exemptions or regulations that will coordinate with the SEC’s actions, it will be at least a year before these initiatives could begin to apply. Continue reading “Old Standard, New Day: The Death of the Fiduciary Rule Doesn’t Mean That Broker-Dealers Won’t be Fiduciaries”
Should you say goodbye to the Fiduciary Rule? Maybe, but not just yet. The DOL has until the end of April to decide whether to let the 5th Circuit decision vacating the Fiduciary Rule stand or try to get it over-turned. If they do nothing, the ruling becomes effective May 7, and bye-bye Fiduciary Rule – the regulation re-defining fiduciary investment advice for plans and IRAs and the related prohibited transaction exemptions.
Many pundits say this is what will happen. But it’s possible that the DOL will either ask the court to reverse itself – this would mean the 15 judge panel agreeing to re-hear and re-decide the case – or try to get the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to accept an appeal. SCOTUS doesn’t have to do that, so those who think the DOL won’t let this go are betting on the re-hearing request. While requests for rehearing are rarely granted, in this case there might be a better chance. The decision vacating the Fiduciary Rule was a split decision, with Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart dissenting in favor of the Rule.
Continue reading “Bye-Bye Fiduciary Rule?”
