February 27, 2020

February 26, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 25, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 24, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

DOL Issues Temporary Enforcement Relief for Fiduciary Rule Non-Compliance

It is possible that the delay to the Department of Labor (DOL) Fiduciary Rule applicability date will not be effective before April 10. If that were to happen, it could cause enormous confusion and noncompliance. In an effort to head off these problems, the DOL has published Field Assistance Bulletin 2017-1 (the FAB), which provides some limited temporary relief.

So, what does this mean for advisers and financial institutions? The FAB recognizes the industry’s concerns about having to comply with the Rule during a temporary “gap period,” as well as the possibility that it could find out only immediately prior to April 10 that no delay would occur. The FAB assures advisers and financial institutions that they will not face possible DOL enforcement merely because they elect to “wait and see” what happens. The FAB makes clear that the DOL still intends to issue a final delay regulation before April 10, but it provides at least some breathing room for the industry in light of the uncertainty.

Specifically, the FAB provides that the DOL will not take enforcement action for non-compliance with the Fiduciary Rule, including its related exemptions, in two cases:

  1. “Gap” Period: If the DOL decides to delay the Fiduciary Rule but the delaying regulation is not finalized until after April 10, the Fiduciary Rule would briefly become applicable during the resulting “gap period.” This would trigger fiduciary status and prohibited transactions for many advisers and financial institutions that waited for the DOL to complete the regulatory process. During the gap period (April 10 until the delay is finalized), the FAB states that DOL will not take enforcement action related to the Rule.

  2. No Delay: If DOL decides to let the Fiduciary Rule become applicable on April 10 with no further delay, advisers and financial institutions would have a “reasonable period” after that decision is announced to begin complying with the Rule. Further, the FAB states that the “Transition Period” disclosures required under the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) and the DOL’s exemption for principal transactions could be provided during the 30-day “cure period” that these two exemptions recognize where disclosures are inadvertently omitted.

In fact, it appears that the DOL is hoping that advisers and financial institutions relying on BICE (or the principal transaction exemption) will hold off on providing retirement investors with Transition Period disclosures until after the delay (if any) is finalized. In the FAB, the DOL expressed its concern over investor confusion resulting from disclosures that communicate uncertain applicability dates and “conditional” acknowledgements of fiduciary status.

Finally, the FAB states that the DOL will consider additional relief as necessary, including a potential prohibited transaction exemption. As we explain below, we believe additional relief will be needed, because the enforcement policy set forth in the FAB provides relief only from DOL enforcement, not from prohibited transaction excise taxes or private litigation.

Does the FAB Provide Absolute Protection?

No. The FAB provides no protection or assurances against action by other regulators or the private sector. Unless the DOL issues a class exemption providing relief for prohibited transactions occurring during a “gap period” (or a “reasonable period” after the decision not to delay the Rule is published, if this should occur), the enforcement policy alone won’t provide relief for “conflicted” advice to IRAs or for excise taxes resulting from prohibited transactions involving ERISA plans. The DOL has no jurisdiction over the enforcement of the prohibited transaction rules for IRAs, or the assessment of excise taxes, which is handled by the IRS in all cases.

As a statement of the government’s intent, however, the FAB is a very important first step. It puts the DOL on record as wanting to avoid negative consequences that would result from a temporary application of the Rule. We applaud this, and hope DOL will build on this foundation, providing an even stronger statement of its intentions to hold harmless those who act in good faith.

What Should Advisers and Financial Institutions Do Now?

Despite the limited relief, advisers and financial institutions may want to proceed with their compliance efforts. While we believe the Rule will probably be delayed, the delay would only be until June 9. During the 60-day delay period, the Rule will be re-reviewed. It may be ultimately modified or revoked, but the final result is far from certain.

Second, it is important to remember that compliance with the current fiduciary and prohibited transaction rules is required in the meantime. The publicity surrounding the Rule has resulted in fiduciary status and “conflicted” recommendations from advice fiduciaries becoming more closely scrutinized.

If no delay occurs (which is unlikely, in our view), compliance with the Rule would be required within a “reasonable period,” even with respect to DOL enforcement. For disclosures required during the BICE Transition Period, the 30-day cure period could be regarded as a safe harbor of sorts. In other cases, the FAB does not explain what the DOL would consider a “reasonable” period, but it could be quite short.

The FAB provides some flexibility for institutions to consider whether to wait and see what happens in early April, but the relief is not absolute. Advisers and financial institutions should follow further developments closely, and we intend to provide updates to our financial services clients as they unfold.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.


About this Author

Fred Reish, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Los Angeles, Labor and Employment Law Attorney

Fred Reish represents clients in fiduciary issues, prohibited transactions, tax-qualification and Department of Labor, Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA examinations of retirement plans and IRA issues.

Fred works with both private and public sector entities and their plans and fiduciaries and represents plans, employers and fiduciaries before federal agencies such as the DOL and IRS. He consults with banks, trust companies, insurance companies and mutual fund management companies on 401(k) recordkeeping services, investment products and...

(310) 203-4047
Bruce Ashton, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Los Angeles, Employment Benefits Attorney

Bruce L. Ashton has more than 35 years of experience handling employee benefits matters. His practice concentrates on representing plan service providers (including RIAs, independent record-keepers, third-party administrators, broker-dealers and insurance companies) in fulfilling their obligations under ERISA. His experience includes representing public and private sector plans and their sponsors, negotiating the resolution of plan qualification issues under IRS remedial correction programs, advising and defending fiduciaries on their obligations and liabilities, and structuring qualified plans, non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements.

Combining his employee benefits and transactional experience, Bruce is also active in the installation and funding of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs).

Bradford Campbell, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Washington DC, Labor and Employment Attorney

Bradford P. Campbell is a nationally recognized figure in employer-sponsored retirement plans. He is the former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits and former head of the Employee Benefits Security Administration. As ERISA’s former “top cop” and primary federal regulator, Brad provides his clients with insight and knowledge across a broad range of ERISA-plan related issues. He provides employee benefits advice to financial service providers and plan sponsors, particularly in relation to ERISA Title I issues, including fiduciary conduct and...

Joshua Waldbeser, Employment lawyer, Drinker Biddle

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...

Sandra Dawn Grannum, Finance, Securities Lawyer, Drinker Biddle Law Firm

Sandra Dawn Grannum concentrates her practice on securities, broker/dealer arbitration, litigation, mediation and regulatory defense.

Sandy has tried complex multimillion-dollar arbitrations before FINRA, AAA and JAMS across the country. She has tried more than 50 arbitrations before the NASD and FINRA through award represented brokerage firms, banks, clearing firms, and associated persons. In addition, she has successfully pursued cases in state and federal courts and in adversarial proceedings before bankruptcy courts.