The Hispanic Leadership Fund (“HLF”) has a strong interest in this case. DOL’s latest rule redefining who is an investment advice fiduciary (“2024 Fiduciary Rule”) is effectively the same as the very harmful 2016 Fiduciary Rule that was invalidated in a 2018 decision by the United States Court of Appeals
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (“Chamber”) is the world’s largest business federation, representing approximately 300,000 direct members and indirectly representing the interests of more than three million businesses and professional organizations of every size, in every industry sector, and from every region of the country.
Enclosed below are FACC’s filings for Preliminary Injunction in FACC et al. vs. DOL.
FACC is disappointed that the DOL has chosen to go down this same tired path with yet another proposal that blatantly violates the 2018 ruling by the Fifth Circuit and arrogantly ignores limitations of its authority under ERISA. The DOL’s new rules are yet another assault on the financial services
FACC sincerely hopes the DOL will reflect in earnest over our concerns about this ill-conceived package of rules and exemptions even though DOL and FACC are engaged in ongoing litigation relating to prior DOL pronouncements. FACC is driven primarily by its commitment to a strong marketplace in which independent agents can function effectively in delivering quality fixed annuity and insurance products to clients who, in turn, want choices for protecting their assets and achieving a secure retirement. It is FACC’s hope that the DOL will reconsider and withdraw its proposed rulemaking, which will otherwise merely serve to unleash a new round of litigation and confusion for retirement savers at a time when those energies could be spent more productively working towards better education of consumers, improving coordination among regulators, and strengthening laws that govern America’s retirement system.
FACC believes the DOL is trying to turn 50 years of ERISA history upside down – which we think is wrong – both legally and as a matter of public policy.  Putting aside the legal issues for a moment – those will have their day if this proposal goes forward – we believe the DOL has created a “false narrative” – for lack of a better phrase – suggesting there is a need to bring Title I regulation for employer plans to IRAs sold to individual consumers covered by Title II.Â
The Proposed Rule proves an important point, i.e., the DOL’s goal has remained unchanged over the past 15 years of rulemaking. While the DOL will likely insist that the Proposed Rule is different from the New Interpretation because the DOL is repealing the five-part test, that is an immaterial distinction. In fact, the Proposed
It is hard to state forcefully enough how the Department’s proposals reflect a complete lack of deference to the Chamber of Commerce opinion. The Department seems to believe it is unencumbered by the Fifth Circuit decision, which it tries to reduce to mere criticism of the Best Interest Contract (BIC) Exemption. In
FACC at the same time is strongly objecting to DOL’s new rule proposal as inherently incompatible with ERISA as spelled out by the Fifth Circuit decision. “FACC will have no choice but to ask the courts yet again to intervene if the DOL dares to move forward with this proposal
In this regard, by now proposing to overhaul PTE 84-24, the DOL sabotages the assurances in its briefing that the New Interpretation had preserved that exemption for insurance agents who would be swept into its far broader reading of the five-part test. Similarly, the DOL has argued that the major question doctrine should not apply because the expansion of fiduciary responsibility under ERISA did not have far-reaching economic impact or involve a matter of political significance. The contents of the new proposal, introduced with fanfare by the President himself, demonstrate otherwise.
