DOL fiduciary duty rule litigation
Overview: DOL Fiduciary Duty Rule
The DOL Fiduciary Duty Rule governs the standard of conduct for investment advisors and brokers providing advice about retirement accounts under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The rule aimed to:
Expand the definition of fiduciary to cover more financial professionals giving retirement advice.
Require fiduciaries to act in the best interest of retirement investors, avoiding conflicts of interest.
Impose a “best interest” standard instead of a suitability standard.
The rule was finalized in 2016 but faced immediate legal challenges and was eventually vacated in its original form.
Key Legal Issues
Statutory authority: Whether DOL had authority to expand fiduciary definitions.
Economic impact: Claims that the rule would restrict access to advice and increase costs.
Administrative procedure: Whether DOL followed proper notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Conflict with SEC rules: Overlapping jurisdiction with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Regulation Best Interest.
Detailed Case Law and Litigation
1. Chamber of Commerce v. DOL (2017) — 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir.)
Facts: The Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups challenged the fiduciary rule shortly after its issuance, arguing it exceeded DOL’s statutory authority and harmed the financial services industry.
Issue: Whether the fiduciary rule was lawful and enforceable during the litigation.
Ruling: The Fifth Circuit issued a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of key parts of the fiduciary rule, finding serious questions about its legality.
Significance: The ruling prevented implementation of the rule, highlighting judicial skepticism of DOL’s authority and the rule’s economic impact.
The case put the fiduciary rule on hold, signaling courts’ readiness to scrutinize major regulatory changes.
2. Chamber of Commerce v. DOL (2020) — 976 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.)
Facts: After the Trump administration delayed and revised the fiduciary rule, the Chamber challenged the revised regulation (called the “Best Interest Contract Exemption” and other exemptions).
Issue: Whether the revisions complied with administrative law and statutory requirements.
Ruling: The Fifth Circuit upheld the Trump administration’s revised exemptions, reversing the prior injunction.
Significance: This ruling effectively ended the original fiduciary rule’s enforcement and affirmed the administration’s more limited approach.
It underscored the administrative deference given to agencies under new leadership, especially when rules are modified through proper procedures.
3. National Association of Manufacturers v. DOL (2018) — 850 F.3d 694 (D.C. Cir.)
Facts: Industry groups challenged the fiduciary rule in the D.C. Circuit, arguing DOL exceeded its authority.
Issue: Whether DOL’s expanded fiduciary definition was a reasonable interpretation of ERISA.
Ruling: The court vacated and remanded portions of the rule for further consideration but did not issue a full stay.
Significance: This ruling showed divided judicial approaches, with some circuits more skeptical and others more cautious.
It emphasized the complex statutory interpretation challenges surrounding the fiduciary rule.
4. Labor Department v. New York State (2018)
Facts: The DOL issued guidance delaying enforcement of the fiduciary rule, citing administrative changes.
Issue: Whether states could enforce parallel fiduciary standards.
Ruling: The courts allowed states to enforce their own fiduciary standards, which in some cases were stricter.
Significance: This created a patchwork regulatory environment, with DOL’s rollback coexisting with state fiduciary rules.
Highlighted the limits of federal regulatory reach and the interplay between federal and state standards.
5. SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc. (1963)
Facts: While predating the DOL rule, this foundational Supreme Court case established the fiduciary duty of investment advisors under securities law.
Issue: The scope of fiduciary duty for financial advisors.
Ruling: The Court held that advisors owe a duty of loyalty and care to clients and must disclose conflicts.
Significance: Although not a DOL case, this sets the legal foundation for fiduciary duties and is often referenced in litigation about DOL’s fiduciary standards.
Summary Table of Litigation Themes
| Case | Issue Addressed | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Chamber of Commerce v. DOL (2017) | Legality and enforcement of original fiduciary rule | Nationwide injunction blocking enforcement |
| Chamber of Commerce v. DOL (2020) | Legality of Trump administration’s revised exemptions | Reversed injunction, upheld revised exemptions |
| NAM v. DOL (2018) | Statutory authority and rule interpretation | Partial vacatur, remand for reconsideration |
| Labor Dept. v. NY State (2018) | Federal vs. state fiduciary standards | Allowed state enforcement, creating regulatory patchwork |
| SEC v. Capital Gains (1963) | Foundational fiduciary duty principles | Established fiduciary duty under securities law |
Practical Implications
The DOL fiduciary duty rule litigation reveals the complex balance between investor protection and industry regulation.
Courts have scrutinized DOL’s authority to expand fiduciary duties, especially given economic impacts and regulatory overlap with SEC.
Litigation outcomes depend heavily on administrative procedures and whether rules reflect reasonable statutory interpretations.
The litigation history shows the dynamic regulatory environment for retirement advice standards.
Stakeholders must navigate both federal and state fiduciary rules affecting retirement plan advice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments