Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

The Delay of the Fiduciary Exemptions: Now Is Not the Time to Relax (Part 2 of 2)

This is Part 2 of our post on important issues for broker-dealers during the extended transition period for the fiduciary exemptions. In Part 1, we discussed the need to develop written supervisory procedures under the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) and the importance of engaging in – and being able to demonstrate – diligent and good faith efforts to comply with the exemptions.

Two other important issues are how to demonstrate compliance with the transition exemptions and the protections that are not afforded by the non-enforcement policy.

1. Demonstrating Compliance. Transition BICE and transition 84-24 are exemptions from the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. If you comply with the applicable conditions – mainly the Impartial Conduct Standards – during the transition period, the exemption applies. But the DOL and the courts have said that the burden of showing compliance with the conditions falls on the party claiming the exemption. In other words, a broker-dealer that is seeking to rely, for example, on transition BICE and thus receive conflicted compensation should be able to prove that it complied with the Impartial Conduct Standards and that it has policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance. (As a reminder, the Impartial Conduct Standards are: (1) advice must satisfy the best standard of care; (2) compensation must be reasonable; and (3) misleading statements must be avoided (in the case of transition exemption 84-24, there must be disclosure of compensation and material conflicts of interest).)

This means that a broker-dealer will need to document the steps the firm and its advisors have taken to meet the exemption conditions. For example:

  • In the case of investment recommendations of asset allocations and the selection of mutual funds and ETFs, the use of reputable software programs can be evidence of compliance.
  • In the case of a recommendation to a participant to take a distribution and roll it over to an IRA, the advisor will need to gather and evaluate information on the investments, services and fees in both the plan and the IRA, plus information about the participant’s financial situation, goals and needs.

In both cases, the broker-dealer must store and be able to retrieve the information.

2.  What’s Not Covered by the Non-Enforcement Policy. The DOL and IRS have indicated – and reaffirmed in the recent extension – that they would not pursue claims against firms and their advisors during the transition period so long as broker-dealers are working diligently and in good faith to comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards. That is helpful, but the non-enforcement policy does not bar individual retirement investors from asserting claims against broker-dealers (for example, alleging that the broker-dealer and advisor did not act in the investor’s best interest or did not satisfy the other Impartial Conduct Standards).

The potential for individual claims should not be underestimated. Here’s why:

  1. Advice to plans. If a broker-dealer is advising a plan or participants, the plan, plan fiduciaries and participants have rights under ERISA to pursue individual claims. This would include, for example, a claim by a participant that advice to take a distribution and roll it over was not in the participant’s best interest and that the broker-dealer and advisor did not follow the steps necessary to engage in a prudent process (for example, a participant could allege that the broker-dealer and advisor did not obtain information about the plan’s investments, services and expenses).
  2. Advice to IRAs. During the transition period, the requirement under BICE to enter into a contract with an IRA owner – which creates the right to a private cause of action – does not apply. So, in the case of IRAs, it is not clear how retirement investors would enforce the best interest standard. Broker-dealers should nonetheless consider the possibility of claims brought in FINRA arbitration with creative causes of actions (for example, claimants may allege that, by accepting conflicted compensation, the broker-dealer committed to adherence to the Impartial Conduct Standards, including the best interest standard).

As we said in Part 1, this is not the time to relax. Broker-dealers and their advisors need to comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards. They should take steps to diligently implement those Standards and documenting their policies, supervision practices and development of their best interest recommendations.

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.

Subscribe and Receive Alerts to New Articles

SUBSCRIBE
December 18, 2017
Written by: Fred Reish and Sandra D. Grannum
Category: Best Interest Standard of Care, Compliance, Enforcement, Impartial Conduct Standards, Policies and Procedures, Prohibited Transactions

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: The Delay of the Fiduciary Exemptions: Now Is Not the Time to Relax (Part 1 of 2)
Next Next post: FINRA’S First Ever Public Release of Exam Findings: Top 6 Observations for Improving Compliance

Subscribe to Alerts

Recent Posts

  • New Year’s Priorities: FINRA Releases its 2023 Report on its Examination and Risk Monitoring Program
  • Managing IRAs: Charging Different Fees for Different Investments
  • FINRA Is Conducting a Targeted Exam of “Crypto Assets”
  • Recent State Fiduciary and Best Interest Developments
  • Rollover Recommendations – Do the SEC and DOL Requirements Align?

Categories

  • 12b-1 Fees
  • 3270
  • 3280
  • 3290
  • Anti-Money Laundering
  • Arbitration
  • BD
  • Best Execution
  • Best Interest Contract Exemption
  • Best Interest Standard of Care
  • Business Continuity Planning
  • Churning
  • Class Certification
  • Compensation Issues
  • Compliance
  • Concurrent jurisdiction
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Congress
  • Covered class actions
  • Covered securities
  • Credit
  • Cryptocurrencies
  • Customer Due Diligence Rule
  • Customer Protection
  • Cybersecurity
  • Dark Pools
  • Data Integrity
  • DOL Fiduciary Rule
  • Elder Abuse
  • Enforcement
  • Event Study
  • Examination
  • Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETF”)
  • exemptions
  • Fair Pricing
  • Fees
  • Fiduciary
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Financial Services
  • FinCEN
  • FINRA
  • FINRA 2018 Annual Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter
  • FINRA 360
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 12204
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 13204
  • FINRA Notice 13-45
  • FINRA Regulatory Notice 16-25
  • FINRA Rule 12200
  • FINRA Rule 13200
  • FINRA Rule 2111
  • FINRA Rule 2165
  • FINRA Rule 2232
  • FINRA Rule 3310(c)
  • FINRA Rule 4210
  • FINRA Rule 4512
  • FINRA Summary Report
  • Fixed Income
  • Fraud
  • Goldman v. City of Reno, 747 F.3d 733(2014)
  • Goldman v. Golden Empire Schools Financing, 767 F.3d 210(2014)
  • IA
  • Impartial Conduct Standards
  • In the Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Respondent (AWC 2009020188101/January 25, 2012)
  • Initial Coin Offerings
  • Investment Recommendation
  • Investor
  • IRA
  • Liquidity
  • Manipulation
  • Margin
  • Market Access
  • Market Access Controls
  • Mortgage
  • Mutual Funds
  • New FINRA Rule
  • OCIE
  • Office of the Solicitor General
  • Options
  • Outside Activities
  • Outside Business Activities (“OBA”)
  • Policies and Procedures
  • Price Impact
  • Private Securities Transactions (“PST”)
  • Private Securities Transactions of an Associated Person”
  • Prohibited Transactions
  • Prudence
  • Quantitative Suitability
  • Reading Health v. JP Morgan, No. 16-4234 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
  • Reasonable Fees
  • Recommendation
  • Regulation Best Interest
  • Regulation SHO
  • Regulatory Notice 18-13
  • Retirement Account
  • Risk
  • Rollovers
  • SEC
  • SEC 2018 National Exam Program Examination Priorities
  • SEC Reg BI
  • SEC RIA Interpretation
  • Securities Act of 1933
  • Securities Class Action
  • Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)
  • Senior Safe Act
  • Seniors
  • Service Providers
  • Short Sales
  • Suitability
  • supervision
  • Supreme Court
  • Surveillance
  • Technology Governance
  • UBS v. Carilion Clinic, 706 F.3d 319(2013)
  • Uncategorized
  • Unit Investment Trusts (“UIT”)
  • Verification of Assets and Liabilities

archives

  • 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
  • 2022
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
  • 2021
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
  • 2020
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
  • 2019
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
  • 2018
    • December 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
  • 2017
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

© 2023 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Lawyer Advertising.
Privacy Policy

We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our privacy policy and cookie policy. OK
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT