The DOL?ÇÖs Employee Benefits Security Administration (the ?Ç£EBSA?Ç¥) recently released additional guidance on PTE 2020-02, Improving Investment Advice for Workers and Retirees, a new prohibited transaction exemption under ERISA that was adopted on December 18, 2020 (the ?Ç£Exemption?Ç¥) (see our prior blog posts about the Exemption here and here). The guidance consists of two documents: (i) a publication titled ?Ç£Choosing the Right Person to Give You Investment Advice: Information for Investors in Retirement Plans and Individual Retirement Accounts?Ç¥ (the ?Ç£Investor Guidance?Ç¥), and (ii) a publication titled ?Ç£New Fiduciary Advice Exemption: PTE 2020-02 Improving Investment Advice for Workers & Retirees Frequently Asked Questions?Ç¥ (the ?Ç£Advisor Guidance?Ç¥). The Investor Guidance provides information on the Exemption for investors and includes a list of questions for investors to ask their investment advice providers, as well as a list of investor-focused FAQs. The Advisor Guidance is compliance focused and includes a list of FAQs targeted… Continue Reading
The DOL recently finalized Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02 ?Çô Improving Investment Advice for Workers & Retirees (?Ç£PTE 2020-02?Ç¥) for investment advice fiduciaries.?á PTE 2020-02 finalizes the proposed exemption which we previously reported on here.?á This guidance for investment advice fiduciaries completes the regulatory process that began in 2016 with the new fiduciary regulations and exemptions issued under the Obama administration, which were vacated in 2018, and the reinstatement of prior regulations and the issuance of new exemption guidance earlier this year.?á While PTE 2020-02 makes some changes to the proposed exemption, it largely retains the proposed exemption?ÇÖs protective framework, including the ?Ç£Impartial Conduct Standards?Ç¥ (under which investment advice fiduciaries must provide advice that is in the retirement investor?ÇÖs ?Ç£best interest?Ç¥), required disclosures, implementation of policies and procedures to comply with the standards and mitigate conflicts of interest, and retrospective compliance review.?á The final exemption also includes a self-correction mechanism for… Continue Reading
In a recent seven-to-two opinion in the case of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of certain employers to claim exemption from providing contraceptive care under the preventive care mandate of the Affordable Care Act (?Ç£ACA?Ç¥) based on religious or moral objections. General Background of the Case The ACA requires covered employers to provide women with ?Ç£preventive care and screenings?Ç¥ without any cost sharing requirements (the ?Ç£Preventive Care Mandate?Ç¥). The ACA relies on ?Ç£preventive care guidelines?Ç¥ (?Ç£Guidelines?Ç¥) supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (?Ç£HRSA?Ç¥), an agency of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, to determine what ?Ç£preventive care and screenings?Ç¥ should include. The Guidelines mandate that health plans provide coverage for all FDA approved contraceptive methods. When the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (collectively, the ?Ç£Departments?Ç¥)… Continue Reading
The New DOL Fiduciary Rule ?Çô A Return to the Old with a New Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemption
On June 29, 2020, the DOL issued its much anticipated new ?Ç£fiduciary rule?Ç¥ under ERISA. The new rule is meant to replace the DOL?ÇÖs previous fiduciary rule (and related exemptions) which went into effect in 2016 but was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2018. The new fiduciary rule is composed of two parts: (i) a final regulation which reaffirms and reinstates the five-part test for determining whether a person renders ?Ç£investment advice?Ç¥ for purposes of ERISA (the ?Ç£Reinstated Rule?Ç¥), and (ii) a new prohibited transaction class exemption for investment advice fiduciaries based on the ?Ç£impartial conduct standards?Ç¥ previously adopted by the DOL (the ?Ç£Proposed Exemption?Ç¥). Reinstated Rule The new rule amends the Code of Federal Regulations to reinstate the prior 1975 regulation which contained the five-part test for determining whether a financial institution or investment professional is a fiduciary for rendering ?Ç£investment advice.?Ç¥… Continue Reading
In December 2017, two federal district courts granted nationwide preliminary injunctions from enforcement of the interim final rules providing for religious and moral exemptions from the contraceptive coverage mandate under the ACA issued in October 2017 by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (collectively, the ?Ç£Departments?Ç¥). Please see our earlier discussion of these exemptions. Both federal courts held that the Departments impermissibly bypassed the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and that the plaintiffs, consisting of six states, sufficiently demonstrated they would be harmed without an injunction. The timing of these injunctions is a cause for concern for any plan sponsors who have already acted in reliance on the interim final rules. The U.S. Department of Justice has indicated it disagrees with these rulings and may appeal. View Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Trump. View State of California v. Health and… Continue Reading
As currently drafted, following the transition period, the Exemptions will be unavailable to any fiduciary whose contract with a retirement investor includes a waiver or qualification of the investor’s right to bring or participate in a class action or other representative action in court. In FAB 2017-03, the DOL announced a policy limiting enforcement of this provision in the Exemptions. Specifically, the DOL announced that it will not pursue a claim against any fiduciary or treat any fiduciary as being in violation of the Exemptions solely because the contract between the fiduciary and the investor includes an arbitration agreement that prevents the investor from participating in class action litigation. FAB 2017-03 is available?áhere.
The DOL recently published a notice (the “Notice“) proposing to extend the “transition period” currently in effect for the Best Interest Contract Exemption and the Principal Transactions Exemption (the “Exemptions“), which were issued in connection with the DOL’s new plan fiduciary definition. During the transition period, fiduciaries may rely on the Exemptions by adhering to the “Impartial Conduct Standards” (i.e., an advisor must give prudent advice that is in retirement investors’ best interest, charge no more than reasonable compensation, and avoid misleading statements). The other conditions applicable to the Exemptions will not become effective until the transition period ends. The Notice proposes to extend the transition period, which is currently scheduled to end on January 1, 2018, through July 1, 2019. The Notice also proposes a delay in the effective date of certain amendments to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 until July 1, 2019. The Notice is available?áhere.
Under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, a fiduciary advisor must qualify for a “prohibited transaction exemption” (“PTE“) in order to receive compensation for providing fiduciary investment advice to plan sponsors, plan participants, and IRA owners. In addition to the proposed fiduciary regulation, the DOL’s “Conflicts of Interest” proposal includes new proposed PTEs and proposes changes to several existing PTEs. The most significant new PTE, the proposed “best interest contract exemption,” would require investment fiduciary advisors to, among other things, enter into contracts with investors that would commit the advisor to acting in the investor’s best interests in order to qualify for the exemption. Links to the proposed new and amended PTEs are available here.