Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

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

What Broker-Dealers Need to Know About Correcting PTE 2020-02 Mistakes

Key Takeaways

The DOL expanded its interpretation of fiduciary advice in the Preamble to PTE 2020-02 and as a result, many more broker-dealers and their registered representatives (investment professionals) are fiduciaries for their recommendations to retirement investors, including rollover recommendations. Therefore, they will need the protection provided by PTE 2020-02. The PTE contains a number of conditions and if those conditions are not met, a prohibited transaction will result.

The good news is that the PTE provides a self-correction process. Unfortunately, some conditions of the self-correction process are difficult to interpret and additional DOL guidance is needed.

To avoid these challenges, broker-dealers should implement good processes and documentation to satisfy the PTE conditions and closely supervise their investment professionals to ensure that the processes are followed.

Background

As we have discussed in previous posts, the DOL’s prohibited transaction exemption (PTE) 2020-02 (Improving Investment Advice for Workers & Retirees), (the “PTE”) allows broker-dealers and their registered representatives (investment professionals) to receive conflicted compensation resulting from non-discretionary fiduciary investment advice to private sector tax-qualified and ERISA-governed retirement plans, participants in those plans, and IRA owners (collectively, “retirement investors”). Also, in the Preamble to the PTE, the DOL expanded its interpretation of fiduciary advice. As a result of that expanded interpretation, many more broker-dealers and their investment professionals are fiduciaries for their recommendations to retirement investors – including rollover recommendations – and therefore will need the protection provided by the PTE.

The PTE contains a number of conditions and if those conditions are not satisfied, the compensation that the broker-dealer earns from the recommendation – for example, commissions or 12b-1 fees on IRA investment transactions, in the case of a rollover – is a prohibited transaction.  Most of the PTE’s requirements became effective on February 1, 2022, and some broker-dealers are already discovering compliance issues because of failures to meet all of the PTE’s conditions. For example, we have seen the following kinds of PTE failures:

  • Failing to provide an adequate and/or timely acknowledgement of fiduciary status under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.
  • Failing to recognize that the PTE is needed for recommending a transfer from an existing IRA with another firm to an IRA with the broker-dealer.
  • Failing to disclose that plan to IRA rollover recommendations and IRA to IRA transfer recommendations are conflicts of interest.
  • Failing to disclose the specific reasons why the plan to IRA rollover or IRA to IRA transfer is in the investor’s best interest. (This condition went into effect July 1, 2022).

The good news is that the PTE provides a self-correction process.

The PTE Self-Correction Procedures:

Fortunately, if the self-correction process in the PTE is satisfied, the failure will not be treated as a prohibited transaction. The PTE self-correction process has the following four requirements:

  1. The failure did not result in investment losses to the retirement investor or if losses did result, the broker-dealer made the retirement investor whole.

    This condition is challenging because the DOL has not provided guidance about the meaning of “investment loss”.  On the one hand, it is not likely that the DOL expects the firm to cover a loss resulting from normal market fluctuations, as long as the investment professional prudently selected the investments in the rollover IRA and they were reasonably priced.  On the other hand, it’s possible that “investment loss” could refer to the increased fees and costs that may result in the rollover IRA. And, if so, this raises the issue of whether the correction should include the ongoing effect of the higher expenses that will continue year-after-year.

  2. The broker-dealer corrects the violation and notifies the DOL of the violation and correction via email to IIAWR@dol.gov within 30 days of correction.

    This condition requires correcting the violation and the DOL has not provided specific details about how to correct failures to comply with the different conditions in the PTE. Correcting a prohibited transaction typically requires that the retirement investor be restored to the position he or she would have been in had the prohibited transaction not occurred. However, in a rollover context, this would mean unwinding the rollover — and since plans do not accept returns of rollovers from former employees, it is not likely that this is what the DOL had in mind. Also, what if there are systemic failures? For instance, suppose that the firm’s rollover disclosure form was deficient and did not contain a conflict of interest disclosure – –  that a rollover recommendation is a conflict because of the compensation that will be earned from the rollover IRA.  Applying a reasonable interpretation, it is likely that the DOL would expect the correction to consist of providing the conflicts disclosure to all participants and/or IRA owners who implemented the recommended rollovers and would want to be notified of this failure.  That then raises the issue of the consequences of a retirement investor then objecting to the rollover.  The correction in that case is not clear and broker-dealers should work with ERISA counsel to determine the appropriate correction.

  3. The correction is made no later than 90 days after the broker-dealer learns of the violation or reasonably should have learned about it.

    To satisfy this condition, broker-dealers should closely supervise and review the procedures for rollover recommendations and other recommendations requiring PTE relief.  This will enable the broker-dealer to discover the error and remedy it in a timely manner.

  4. The broker-dealer notifies the person responsible for conducting the retrospective review during the relevant review cycle and the violation and correction is specifically set forth in the written report.

    Broker-dealers can satisfy this condition by ensuring that the supervisory procedures identify the person responsible for conducting the retrospective annual review (usually the Chief Compliance Officer) and by training investment professionals and supervisors to report PTE failures and corrections to that person.

Conclusion

With these conditions in mind, broker-dealers should review and modify their supervisory procedures, as needed, to reflect compliant processes and documentation for rollover recommendations and other recommendations requiring relief through the PTE.  This should be coupled with training of their investment professionals and close supervision of covered recommendations to ensure that the processes are  followed, and to timely identify and correct failures under the PTE’s self-correction process.

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
September 13, 2022
Written by: Fred Reish and Joan M. Neri
Category: DOL Fiduciary Rule, Fiduciary, Rollovers
Tags: DOL, PTE 2020-02, Self-Correction Process, Standard of Care

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: And Now for the SEC’s First Substantive Reg BI Action
Next Next post: 16 “At One Blow” – The SEC Sanctions for Recordkeeping Failures

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