Skip to content

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in FACC v. DOL

“For the reasons stated, the Court should DENY Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court should vacate the portions of PTE 2020-02’s text and preamble that allow consideration of Title II investment advice relationships when determining Title I fiduciary status, including the New Interpretation’s (i) allowance of review that a single rollover “can be the beginning of an ongoing advice relationship” to Title II plans, PTE 2020-02, 85 Fed. Reg. at 82806; (ii) inclusion of potential “future, ongoing relationships” to Title II plans, id. at 82805; and (iii) conclusion that “an ongoing advisory relationship spanning both the Title I Plan and the IRA satisfies the regular basis prong”…

Leave a Reply