Advertisement

May 18, 2013

DOL to Re-Propose “Fiduciary” Definition Regulation in Wake of Considerable Criticism

The U.S. Department of Labor recently withdrew a proposed regulation that would have substantially expanded the definition of “fiduciary” under federal employee benefits law.  The regulation will be re-proposed in early 2012, although it is unclear whether any proposal will be finalized prior to the 2012 presidential election.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently announced its withdrawal of a proposed rule that would have substantially expanded the definition of “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Background

Under the existing regulation, which the DOL published in 1975 shortly after the passage of ERISA itself, a firm or entity engaged to provide investment advice to a benefit plan is only considered a fiduciary for ERISA purposes if: it renders advice on a regular basis, it is pursuant to a mutual agreement; the advice serves as a primary basis for investment decisions; and the advice is individualized to the needs of the plan, a plan fiduciary or a participant or beneficiary.  If a firm or entity does not satisfy all criteria, it is not considered a fiduciary for ERISA purposes and is shielded from the potential substantial liability that fiduciary status imposes under the law.  Shortly after adopting the existing regulation, the DOL issued an advisory opinion confirming that a firm would not be a fiduciary when it provides a valuation of closely held employer securities in connection with an employee stock ownership plan’s (ESOP) purchase of such securities.

Last year, however, the DOL revisited this long-standing approach and proposed a new rule that would have expanded the definition of fiduciary for ERISA purposes.   The proposed regulation made four significant changes:

  1. The proposal eliminated the requirement that the advice be rendered on a regular basis.
  2. Any advice considered in connection with investment decisions would be covered, thereby eliminating the “primary basis” element of the current regulation.
  3. The advice no longer would need to be provided pursuant to a mutual agreement.
  4. The proposal specifically included appraisals and fairness opinions and explicitly would overturn the DOL’s 1976 advisory opinion.

Response to the Original Proposal

The DOL received more than 260 written comments following publication of the proposed rule.  Many emphasized the potential unintended consequences of the rule, such as the imposition of fiduciary liability upon valuation firms providing routine fairness opinions to ESOPs and the effect of the expanded definition on arm’s length commercial transactions.  In addition, members of the Financial Services Institute, which represents independent broker-dealers and financial advisors, sent more than 3,000 letters criticizing the proposal to the White House, highlighting the proposal’s potential unintended consequences and urging reconsideration.   

Where Things Currently Stand

The official DOL announcement indicates that the decision comports with President Obama’s January 2011 executive order on regulations, which directed agencies to conduct principled cost-benefit analyses prior to the passage of new regulations.  However, the announcement concedes that the decision to reconsider is at least “in part a response to requests from the public, including members of Congress, that the agency allow an opportunity for more input on the rule.”  In the announcement, the DOL indicated that it intends to coordinate with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to ensure the fiduciary regulation comports with the other agencies’ regulation of investment professionals and fiduciary conduct.  The DOL also intends to address concerns regarding application of the rule to routine appraisals, unrelated to a transaction, and arm’s length commercial transactions, such as swaps.  According to the announcement, the new regulation will be re-proposed in early 2012, which raises questions whether any proposal will be finalized prior to the 2012 presidential election. 

© 2013 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

Jonathan J. Boyles is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm's New York office. 

212-547-5550

About the Author

Associate

Ashley McCarthy is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s New York office.  She focuses her practice on employee benefits matters related to pension plans, 401(k) plans, executive compensation arrangements and welfare plans.

212 547 5794

Contributors

Partner

Karen A. Simonsen is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Chicago office.  She counsels privately and publicly-held corporations and large partnerships on a broad range of employee benefits matters.  She focuses her practice primarily on design and compliance issues related to qualified retirement plans, non-qualified deferred and equity compensation programs, and fiduciary issues.

312-984-6960

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.