This is a statutory construction case. And as such, we believe there’s a basic principle that can and should guide the Court’s decision in matters of statutory construction as it does in matters — many matters under the law. And that — that principle is: Words have meaning. In this particular case, we have the luxury, not often afforded to litigants, that the Fifth Circuit has given us very clear direction as to the meaning of the statute in question arising out of the last time the Department of Labor sought to redefine who’s a “fiduciary” under ERISA.
TO: FACC Members and Supporters We want to make you aware of draft legislation soon to be introduced in California that is highly troublesome. This is legislation advocated by the California Insurance Commissioner which is contrary to the NAIC Model and would be harmful to consumer choice. FACC is concerned…
From the standpoint of good governance and promoting sound regulation that is business friendly, consumer protective, and consistent with a competitive marketplace, we believe South Dakota would be best served to not deviate from the NAIC model requirements. We hope you – as Governor – will appreciate and agree that it is a strong statement in favor of state insurance regulation that so many states have already banded together to adopt best interest standards befitting the insurance industry and thereby have helped preserve state regulation against federal encroachment.
We urge that Subchapter 17 be modified to specify the content of required disclosure forms rather than stating “on a form prescribed by the Commissioner.” These statements appear in the “Disclosure obligation” and “Documentation obligation” provisions in subsection 365:25-17-7 (a) concerning Best Interest Obligations. This modification could be done either by incorporating the full forms into the regulation as provided for in the NAIC Model Regulation or making specific reference to the NAIC Model Regulation exhibit forms.
We urge Wyoming to specify the content of Disclosures A, B, and C as done in the Model Regulation. This could be done either by incorporating the full forms into the regulation or making specific reference to the NAIC model regulation exhibit forms. The NAIC model regulation identifies these exhibit forms as Appendices A, B, and C.
FACC must strongly oppose the proposal to amend Georgia’s suitability regulation as currently drafted. The current proposal attempts to create a “best interest” standard in a single sentence which FACC believes would be a serious mistake and would prove counterproductive as compared to adopting the newly revised NAIC Model Regulation in its entirety.
Georgia Insurance Department is to be commended for its interest in modernizing your existing regulation and the following path of 29 other states who have adopted the regulation.
HLF has a strong interest in this case. The DOL preamble being challenged by the Plaintiffs . . . would resurrect much of the very harmful 2016 Fiduciary Rule in a manner that directly conflicts with the 2018 decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Fifth Circuit”) invalidating that rule . . . . If DOL is permitted to flout the court’s mandate, the New Interpretation will have the disastrous effect on individuals saving for retirement—especially Hispanic and Black Americans—that was shown to have occurred by the HLF Fiduciary Study.
The DOL’s principal defense of the New Interpretation comes down to little more than the fact that it pays lip service to the opinion in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. United States Department of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018). According to the DOL,
FACC comments on one apparent deviation in the proposed amendments from the NAIC model regulation. We note a portion of Section 1.B of the model regulation was not included in the Illinois proposal in its entirety as represented by the underlined language: Nothing herein shall be construed to create or