Fiduciary Archives

Author:

View the full bio for at the Drinker Biddle website.

Posts by :

Recent State Fiduciary Duty Developments: Arizona Enacts Best Interest Standard

Arizona has become the second state after Iowa to enact a best interest standard for the sale of annuities. Like the Iowa law, both of which become effective January 1, 2021, Arizona’s law is modeled after the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) model regulation. The new law requires insurance producers to “act in the best interest of the consumer under the circumstances known at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the producer’s or the insurer’s financial interest ahead of the consumer’s interest.”

Continue reading “Recent State Fiduciary Duty Developments: Arizona Enacts Best Interest Standard”

Recent State Fiduciary Duty Developments

The Iowa Insurance Division has adopted the insurance producer portion of the rule for its proposed best interest standard for annuity sales, effective January 1, 2020. In response to comments, the Division elected to postpone the rule’s application to securities professionals, indicating that it intends to publish new rulemaking for the securities industry later this summer.

See the updated state chart.

State Fiduciary Duty Developments: Massachusetts Moves Ahead with Fiduciary Standard

The Massachusetts Securities Division has issued an amended version of its proposed fiduciary standard for financial advisors. The original proposal was released in mid-June.

The amendment adds definition to the standard by including a detailed list of requirements as described in Faegre Drinker’s updated state law chart. The absence of this type of description has been a major criticism of other attempts at adopting a fiduciary standard for financial advisors.

Continue reading “State Fiduciary Duty Developments: Massachusetts Moves Ahead with Fiduciary Standard”

Nevada Proposes Fiduciary Regulations

Nevada has released a proposed regulation to regulate broker-dealers and their advisors as fiduciaries. In 2017, the state amended its securities law to provide that broker-dealers and investment advisers owe a fiduciary duty to their customers, but the change didn’t provide details on what that meant. Instead, the legislation required that a regulation be issued to explain and implement the change. Nearly a year and a half later, a proposed regulation has been released.

Continue reading “Nevada Proposes Fiduciary Regulations”

The Continuing Convergence of Retail and Retirement Regulatory Oversight

Last month the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) issued its “2019 Examination Priorities.” The release of OCIE’s 2019 Priorities this year was earlier than in years past. In retrospect, the date of issuance being the last day before the vast majority of the SEC staff was furloughed may just be coincidental, but the federal government shutdown allowed the industry more time to study OCIE’s 2019 Priorities for compliance planning for the upcoming year. Another impact of the shutdown and furloughs in an area directly related to OCIE’s first priority is that the SEC’s efforts and the timing of the finalization of the Reg BI proposals have very likely been slowed as well. The recent ending of the SEC furloughs and OCIE’s continuing prioritization of retail and retirement regulatory issues presents us with an opportune time to re-visit these important topics.

Continue reading “The Continuing Convergence of Retail and Retirement Regulatory Oversight”

Fiduciary Status 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”

Drinker Biddle Launches Best Interest Compliance Team

As discussed regularly on this blog, the financial industry has seen a stream of rules and regulations in recent years that relate to the standard of care and management of conflicts for broker-dealers, investment advisers, insurance agents and companies.

The need for experienced counsel to help navigate the evolving and overlapping federal and state “best interest” obligations has increased. It’s the reason we’re excited to announce the launch of our Best Interest Compliance Team.

This interdisciplinary group of more than 20 lawyers consists of attorneys with experience across Investment Management, ERISA, SEC & Regulatory Enforcement Defense, Litigation/FINRA Arbitration, and Insurance Regulatory and Transactional practice areas.

The Best Interest Compliance Team will help clients make decisions about questions such as:

What does the SEC’s proposed Regulation Best Interest mean?
How does the SEC’s RIA interpretive guidance impact the standards currently applied to RIAs?
What is the effect of the court order vacating the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule and what already-implemented changes will continue under the SEC proposals for RIAs and broker-dealers?
How should written supervisory procedures be revised in light of these changes and proposals?
What measures should be taken to show good-faith compliance with the DOL’s non-enforcement policy?
Where should broker-dealers/RIAs/insurance companies go from here?
How should insurance agents deal with conflicting state regulatory schemes?

To learn more about the new Best Interest Compliance Team, read our press release or visit our team page on the Drinker Biddle website.

Why Fiduciary Status Still Matters in a Post-Fiduciary Rule World: A Look at Prohibited Transactions And Compensation

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”

Old Standard, New Day: The Death of the Fiduciary Rule Doesn’t Mean That Broker-Dealers Won’t be Fiduciaries

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”

The Fate of the Fiduciary Rule: What is Not Affected

While we won’t know until the end of the month whether the DOL fiduciary rule will survive beyond May 7, there are some activities that won’t be affected, regardless of what happens.

Let’s start by reviewing basics. A fiduciary under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) includes one who provides investment advice to an ERISA plan and/or IRA for a fee –an “advice fiduciary.” Before the new DOL fiduciary rule, a broker-dealer or RIA (referred to here as a “firm”) would be considered an advice fiduciary if a five-part test was satisfied: (1) its advisor provided advice for compensation about a security or other property, (2) on a regular basis, (3) pursuant to a mutual understanding, (4) that the advice would form a primary basis for the investor’s decision and (5) it was individualized based upon the investor’s particular needs. If the DOL’s new fiduciary rule does not survive, the five-part test will come back into effect.

Regardless of whether the DOL fiduciary rule or the five-part test applies, there are some things that will remain unchanged:

• Investment Management Services: Discretionary investment management for ERISA plans or IRAs is and will continue to be a fiduciary service. This is because under both ERISA and the Code, there is a definition of “fiduciary” separate and apart from an “advice fiduciary.” That definition says that a broker-dealer or RIA, or its representative, is a fiduciary when it has discretion over ERISA or IRA assets. This means that investment management services for ERISA plans are, and continue to be, subject to ERISA’s prudent man standard of care and duty of loyalty. Also, managing ERISA and/or IRA plan assets is, and will continue to be, subject to the fiduciary prohibited transaction rules in ERISA and the Code. Firms need to have policies, training and supervisory processes in place to ensure that advisors providing investment management services to ERISA plans and/or IRAs comply with these rules, even if the DOL fiduciary rule does not survive.

• Reasonable Compensation: Firms also need to make sure that compensation for services to ERISA plans or IRAs is reasonable, because unreasonable compensation is a prohibited transaction under both the Code and ERISA. This requirement applies to all service providers to plans, participants and IRAs, and to service providers who are not fiduciaries. Firms need to develop systems and data to determine reasonable compensation for different products and services and to manage advisor compensation practices.

• Rollover Recommendations by Fiduciary Advisors: Even if the DOL fiduciary rule does not survive, some rollover recommendations may still be fiduciary acts. Specifically, under a DOL advisory opinion, if an advisor (and the firm) is a plan fiduciary and its advisor recommends that a plan participant take a distribution and roll over to an IRA, the advisor will be a fiduciary for that purpose. As such, the advisor’s recommendation needs to satisfy the ERISA prudent man standard. Additionally, if the DOL fiduciary rule does not survive, there will not be a Best Interest Contract Exemption to “cure” the resulting prohibited transaction. If, on the other hand, the firm is not a fiduciary to the plan and the advisor recommends a rollover, it will not be a fiduciary act if the DOL fiduciary rule does not survive. Firms should examine their current rollover practices and determine what processes will need to be retained to address these issues.

• Ongoing Advisory Services: Providing ongoing investment advisory services to ERISA plans or IRAs based upon the particular needs of the retirement investor will continue to be a fiduciary act even if the DOL fiduciary rule is vacated. The reason is that under most advisory arrangements, the advisor is providing the advice on a regular basis and meeting the other elements of the five-part test. The firm should identify current arrangements that satisfy the five-part test and make sure there are policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the prohibited transaction rules and exemptions and, in the case of ERISA plan services, compliance with the prudent man rule and duty of loyalty.

While the possible demise of the DOL fiduciary rule will limit the scope of investment activities that are fiduciary in nature, there are still investment services that will be fiduciary and thus subject to the prohibited transaction requirements. As a result, firms should take steps now to identify those activities and take appropriate steps for compliance.