We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2017
Forty House Democrats urged DOL Office of Regulations and
Interpretations ("ORI") Employee Benefits Security
Administration Acting Secretary Edward Hugler to reconsider the
DOL's proposed delay of the fiduciary rule, as mandated by
President Donald J. Trump in a February 3, 2017 Memorandum (see
previous coverage).
In their letter to Mr. Hugler, the lawmakers stated that the DOL
"promulgated the fiduciary rule after conducting a thorough,
thoughtful and transparent multi-year process." They
emphasized the extensive preparation and immediate need for the
final rule:
"[T]he final fiduciary rule is the product of more than six
years of research, consideration of more than 300,000 comments,
four days of hearings, and hundreds of meetings. It is unacceptable
that now – roughly a month before implementation of the final
rule is scheduled to begin – the DOL is carelessly proposing
to delay it. . . . We believe it is imperative the final rule be
implemented on schedule and without delay."
The letter cited industry support for the fiduciary rule, and
asserted that "nine in ten Americans reportedly agree with the
DOL's rule." In addition, the Democrats argued that
the "retirement savings landscape has changed dramatically
since the rule was last meaningfully updated in 1975," and
that the DOL "provided appropriate relief that mitigates
industry concerns and compliance costs." Moreover, "three
separate lawsuits" found not only that the DOL "has the
statutory duty to promulgate the rule under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act . . . but that its rule
is a reasonable, workable solution that protects America's
retirement savers."
Commentary
One can take issue with any number of the assertions made in
this letter, but the most obviously questionable assertion is that
the financial industry supports the rule. It is true that those
firms that believe that the rule benefits them may support it, but
if it were true that the industry generally supported the rule,
then there would not be three lawsuits and the rule would not have
been delayed. Likewise, that a court found that DOL had authority
to adopt the rule is actually quite different from asserting that
the court could find that the DOL had a duty to adopt the rule.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In January 2017, we published our bi-annual Recent Trends and Patterns in FCPA Enforcement report, part of our FCPA Digest, which provides an analysis of recent enforcement trends and patterns...
In 2016, a year after the sharp decrease in both the number and size of corporate FCPA resolutions, the DOJ's and SEC's enforcement activity rebounded, as reflected by a record number of corporate FCPA resolutions...
FinCEN notified U.S. financial institutions that the Financial Action Task Force ("FATF") updated the list of jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in combating anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism ("AML/CFT").
Without fanfare or forewarning, the US Department of Justice released new anti-corruption compliance guidance on February 8, 2017. The eight page document provides rare insight into the government's evaluation of corporate compliance programs.
On February 8, 2017, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") Fraud Section published a blueprint for assessing corporate compliance efforts, titled "Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs"...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
