February 17, 2019

February 15, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 14, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

What the Tibble Decision Means to Advisers: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #60

What the Tibble Decision Means to Advisers

This is my 60th article about interesting observations concerning the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule and exemptions. These articles also cover the DOL’s FAQs interpreting the regulation and exemptions and related developments in the securities laws.

On June 9th, almost all advisers to retirement plans became fiduciaries—or, more accurately, those that were not already serving as fiduciary advisers became fiduciaries. While most of my Angles posts have been about the fiduciary rule and prohibited transaction exemptions, this article is about the impact of the latest Tibble decision (Tibble v. Edison Int’l, No. CV 07-5359 SVW (AGRx), 2017 WL 3523737 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017)) on the development and delivery of fiduciary investment advice to 401(k) plans and ERISA-governed 403(b) plans.

As background, the Tibble case, through a series of decisions, held that it was a breach of fiduciary duty for a plan committee to select overly-expensive share classes of mutual funds. More specifically, the issue was whether the Tibble committee should have selected institutional share classes rather than retail share classes.

Viewed superficially, the decision could be interpreted to mean that plan fiduciaries must always select the cheapest share class. However, that is not correct. As a part of the decision, the attorneys for the plan committee argued that the retail share classes were justified since the revenue sharing paid by the mutual funds (and their affiliates) was used to pay for appropriate plan expenses (and, presumably, were enough to offset the additional cost of the retail share classes). The attorneys were justified in taking that position because other courts have held that, where mutual funds pay amounts to cover reasonable costs for operating a plan, the additional expense is reasonable. The Tibble court responded that the attorneys should have raised the argument at trial (which was years ago) and that the argument would not be considered at this point in the proceedings. As a result, the Tibble fiduciaries were left without a legal basis for justifying the increased expenses of the retail share classes.

With that background, plan committees, and their fiduciary advisers, have two alternatives when evaluating share classes. The first is to select the lowest-cost available share class, for example, an institutional share class. (I say “available share class” because not all share classes are generally available to smaller plans. Obviously, fiduciaries do not need to consider share classes that they can’t invest in. However, there is a fiduciary “duty to ask” about the available share classes.) The second is to select a higher-cost share class (for example, retail shares) where the increased expense can be justified by revenue sharing for operating the plan, for example, for compensation to the recordkeeper and adviser. Both alternatives are legally permissible.

However, there are several issues. Some of those are:

  • Who should decide whether to use higher cost share classes that pay revenue sharing for plan expenses?

Unfortunately, there isn’t any specific guidance on that question. However, in my experience, most advisers believe that plan fiduciaries should decide whether expenses are paid by revenue sharing, by the plan sponsor, or by charges to the participants. Accordingly, the first step for an adviser is to consult with the plan fiduciaries to determine whether the adviser should recommend the lowest-cost available share classes or whether the adviser should recommend share classes that pay reasonable amounts of revenue sharing to offset plan expenses. (Where the mutual funds pay more revenue sharing than is needed for reasonable plan expenses, the excess should be restored to the plan and the participants. For example, that might be done through an expense recapture account.)

  • What is the adviser’s responsibility?

When a fiduciary adviser recommends mutual funds to the plan fiduciaries (e.g., the plan committee), the adviser should recommend the appropriate share class for that plan. In other words, the adviser should evaluate the mutual fund share classes in light of the revenue sharing decisions made by the plan fiduciaries.

  • What are the adviser’s subsequent responsibilities?

The Tibble decision also held that the plan fiduciaries have an ongoing duty to monitor for these purposes. As a result, if a fiduciary adviser is providing monitoring advice, the share class issue needs to be re-visited at reasonable intervals. There’s no specific guidance on the appropriate timing of those reviews, but advisers need to consider the issue when developing and communicating their monitoring recommendations.

While both of the alternatives—that is, no revenue sharing and revenue sharing share classes—are available, the easier course of action would be to use the lowest-cost share class (and, if possible, non-revenue paying shares). Where some of the investments pay revenue sharing, the plan can be immunized by returning that revenue sharing to the participants who hold shares of those mutual funds (which is sometimes called “levelization” or “equalization”). In this case, the scope of monitoring is reduced and the plan is more transparent.

My point in writing this article is that Tibble impacts advisers as much as it impacts responsible plan fiduciaries. As a secondary, but important risk management matter, fiduciary advisers need to consider whether their discussions with plan committees about revenue sharing are adequate to enable the plan fiduciaries to fully understand the issues and to make informed decisions. The Tibble decision is an important reminder that, when mutual funds are recommended, an adviser needs to focus on the appropriate share class and needs direction about the use of funds that pay revenue sharing.

Forewarned is forearmed.

The views expressed in this article are the views of Fred Reish, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Part 1- Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #1

Part 2 - Best Interest Standard of Care: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #2 

Part 3 - Hidden Preamble Observations: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #3

Part 4 - TV Stock Tips and Fiduciary Advice: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary #4

Part 5 - Level Fee Fiduciary Exemption: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #5

Part 6 - Fiduciary Regulation And The Exemptions: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #6

Part 7 - Fiduciary Regulations And The Exemptions : Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #7

Part 8 - Designated Investment Alternatives: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #8

Part 9 - Best Interest Standard and the Prudent Man Rule: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #9

Part 10 - FINRA Regulatory Notice: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #10

Part 11-ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #11

Part 12- Potential Prohibited Transactions: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #12

Part 13-Investment Policies: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #13

Part 14- Investment Suggestions: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #14

Part 15- Best Interest Contract Exemption: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #15

Part 16 - Adviser Recommendations: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #16

Part 17 - Level Fee Fiduciary: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #17

Part 18- Best Interest Contract Exemption and IRA Advisor Compensation: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #18

Part 19- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #19: Advisors' Use of "Hire Me" Practices.

Part 20- Three Parts of "Best Interest Standard of Care": Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #20

Part 21- Retirement Plan Documentation and Prudent Recommendation: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #21

Part 22-Banks and Prohibited Transactions: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #22

Part 23-Prohibited Transactions: IRA and RIA Qualified Money: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #23

Part 24 - Differential Compensation Based on Neutral Factors: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #24

Part 25-Reasonable Compensation Versus Neutral Factors: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #25

Part 26- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #26- Reasonable Compensation for IRAs: When and How Long?

Part 27 - Definition of Compensation: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #27

Part 28 - What About Rollovers that Aren’t Recommended?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #28

Part 29- Capturing Rollovers: What Information is Needed?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #29

Part 30- Three Kinds of Level Fee Fiduciaries . . . and What’s A “Level Fee?”: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #30

Part 31 - “Un-levelizing” Level Fee Fiduciaries: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #31

Part 32 - What “Level Fee Fiduciary” Means for Rollover Advice: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #32

Part 33- Discretionary Management, Rollovers and BICE: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #33

Part 34- Seminar Can Be Fiduciary Act: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #34

Part 35- Presidential Memorandum on Fiduciary Rule: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #35

Part 36 -Retirement Advice and the SEC: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #36

Part 37 - SEC Retirement-Targeted Examinations: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #37

Part 38- SEC Examinations of RIAs and Broker-Dealers under the ReTIRE Initiative: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #38

Part 39- FINRA Regulatory Notice 13-45: Guidance on Distributions and Rollovers: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #39

Part 40 - New Rule, Old Rule - What Should Advisers Do Now?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #40

Part 41 - While We Wait: The Current Fiduciary Rule and Annuities: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #41

Part 42 - Rollovers under DOL’s Final Rule: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #42

Part 43 - BICE Transition: More Than the Eye Can See - Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #43

Part 44 - Basic Structure of Fiduciary Package (June 9): Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #44

Part 45 - DOL Fiduciary “Package”: Basics on the Prohibited Transaction Exemptions: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #45

Part 46 - How Does an Adviser Know How to Satisfy the Best Interest Standard?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #46

Part 47- “Real” Requirements of Fiduciary Rule: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #47

Part 48- The Last Word: The Fiduciary Rule Applies on June 9- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #48

Part 49- The Requirement to Disclose Fiduciary Status: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #49

Part 50- Fourth Impartial Conduct Standard: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #50

Part 51- Recommendations to Transfer IRAs: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #51

Part 52 - The Fiduciary Rule and Exemptions: How Long Will Our Transition Be?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #52

Part 53 - Fiduciary Rule and Discretionary Investment Management: Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #53

Part 54 - The DOL’s RFI and Possible changes to BICE: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #54

Part 55- DOL’s RFI and Recommendation of Annuities- Interesting Angles on DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #55

Part 56-Recommendations of Contributions as Fiduciary Advice: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #56

Part 57- Relief from 408(b)(2) Requirement on Change Notice: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #57

Part 58- Recommendations to Contribute to a Plan or IRA- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #58

Part 59- What Plans and Arrangements Are Covered by the Fiduciary Rule: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #59

Part 61- The Fiduciary Rule, Distributions and Rollovers: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #61

Part 62 - Is It Possible To Be An Advisor Without Being A Fiduciary? - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #62

Part 63-Policies and Procedures: The Fourth BICE Requirement - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #63

Part 64 -What Does the Best Interest Standard of Care Require?-Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #64

Part 65- Unexpected Consequences of Fiduciary Rule - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #65

Part 66- Concerns About 408(b)(2) Disclosures: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #66

Part 67- From the DOL to the SEC - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #67

Part 68-Recommendations of Distributions - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #68

Part 69- Compensation Risks for Broker-Dealers and RIAs: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #69

Part 70-The Fiduciary Rule and Recordkeeper Services: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #70

Part 71- Recordkeepers and Financial Wellness Programs: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #71

Part 72-The "Wholesaler" Exception: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #72

Part 73- Recordkeeper Investment Support for Plan Sponsors: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #73

Part 74 -One More Fiduciary Issue for Recordkeepers: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #74

Part 75 - The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs-Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #75

Part 76 - Discretionary Management of IRAs: Prohibited Transaction Issues for RIAs- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #76

Part 77 - The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs (#2): Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #77

Part 78 - The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs (#3): Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #78

Part 79 - The Fiduciary Rule: Mistaken Beliefs (#4)- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #79

Part 80 - Enforceable During Transition?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #80

Part 81 - The Fiduciary Rule Prohibits Commissions...  or Not (Myth #6): Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #81

Part 82 - Undisclosed (and Disclosed) 12b-1 Fees: The Different Views of the SEC and DOL - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #82

Part 83 - Part 2 of Undisclosed (and Disclosed) 12b-1 Fees: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #83

Part 84- What Does the 5th Circuit Decision Mean for Rollover Recommendations?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #84

Part 85 -The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 1)? : Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #85

Part 86- The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 2)?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #86

Part 87 - The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 3)?: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #87

Part 88 -The Fiduciary Rule: What’s Next (Part 4)? : Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #88

Part 89 - The 5th Circuit Decision, Prohibited Transactions, and New Non-Enforcement Policies: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #89

Part 90 - Parallels Between the SEC Regulation Best Interest and the DOL Best Interest Contract Exemption (Part 1): Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #90

Part 91- Parallels Between the SEC Regulation Best Interest and the DOL Best Interest Contract Exemption (Part 2): Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #91

Part 92 - SEC Proposed Reg BI and Recommendations of Rollovers (Part 1): Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #92

Part 93 - SEC Proposed Reg BI and Recommendations of Rollovers (Part 2): Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #93

Part 94 - SEC Proposed Reg BI and Recommendations of Rollovers (Part 3) : Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #94

Part 95 - Regulation Best Interest Recommendations by Broker-Dealers: Part 1- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #95

Part 96 - Regulation Best Interest Recommendations by Broker-Dealers: Part 2- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #96

Part 97 – Regulation Best Interest Recommendations by Broker-Dealers: Part 3 - Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #97

Part 98 – Regulation Best Interest: Consideration of Cost and Compensation- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #98

Part 99 – Investment Advisers and the SEC's Interpretation of Their Duties: Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #99

Part 100 - Investment Advisers and the SEC’s Interpretation of Their Duties: Part II- Interesting Angles on the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule #100

 

©2019 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

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

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