Following Judge Kinkeade’s decision in FACC’s lawsuit against the DOL challenging the 2020 guidance, FACC has filed a motion with Judge Kinkeade asking that he reconsider his ruling in light of more recent legal developments, including the widely publicized Supreme Court decision setting aside agency deference and two recent federal
FACC wishes to make the following statement concerning the decision by Judge Ed Kinkeade in FACC vs. DOL: FACC believes Judge Kinkeade’s decision issued yesterday is right in some respects and wrong in others. Thus FACC will seek reconsideration or appeal of this decision. While FACC is not surprised by
This document contains the full text of U.S. Magistrate Judge Rutherford’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations in the case Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice (FACC) v. U.S. Department of Labor. Issued on June 30, 2023, it evaluates the legality of the DOL’s new interpretation of fiduciary duties under ERISA as
FACC recently submitted comments to the Office of Management and Budget urging deregulation of harmful fiduciary rules. The letter highlights how the DOL’s 2020 Guidance and 2024 Fiduciary Rule represent unlawful overreach that harms consumers. FACC calls for both to be rolled back so the industry can better focus on
The U.S. Court of Appeals has granted an abeyance of 60 days in the case between the Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice, Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor and Acting Secretary Vincent Micone. The court’s order allows the DOL’s new officials time to review the case details
“The parties respectfully request that the two appeals be consolidated solely for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Consolidation would promote judicial economy, as both appeals concern the validity of the same final rule promulgated by DOL, and plaintiffs in the two appeals assert similar claims. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(b)(2) (“When . . . parties have filed separate timely notices of appeal, the appeals may be joined or consolidated by the court of appeals.”).”
