United States: SEC Regulation Best Interest: Charting A Course For Securities And Annuity Sales

Last Updated: September 10 2018
Article by James F. Jorden and Ben V. Seessel

In June, we circulated our fifth article on the continuing saga regarding the standard of conduct for sales of securities and annuities — and the efforts of federal and state regulators to impose new conditions on the existing standards. Our earlier articles focused on the potential for regulatory and litigation issues arising under the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule adopted in 2016, which was struck down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Soon after the court's opinion, the SEC proposed a new regulation governing the regulation of broker-dealers in the recommendation and sale of securities — the Regulation Best Interest — which was the subject of our article last month. From the outset, we predicted that the change in regulatory treatment may create potentially significant changes in litigation involving sales of both securities and annuities. We predicted the following results for the DOL's fiduciary rule before it was vacated.

From a litigation perspective, this change to a fiduciary status for the sales agent is substantial and in many cases will afford litigants unhappy with investment results or the ultimate characteristics of a particular form of security or annuity the opportunity to second-guess the original decision applying a significant range of issues.

This article is the first in a series that will focus on what potential new or different litigation issues the SEC's RBI standards present. My co-author, Ben Seessel, will soon provide similar predictions and analysis on potential new/different FINRA enforcement issues.

We begin by reviewing some of the important differences between the BIC and the RBI.

Q. What are the key differences between the BIC and RBI standards as they relate to litigation exposure?

A. Starting with the enforcement mechanisms, as we pointed out last month, there are two key operational differences. First, on the type of transactions covered; and second on the "standards" for best interest. Each of these differences result in significant differences for potential litigation issues. There is a third difference which we did not highlight in our earlier piece — the difference in the vehicles for "enforcement" of the two standards.

The DOL's BIC Rule: This rule imposed best interest (fiduciary) standards on all recommendations and sales of both securities and annuities (and many other forms of "investments") to ERISA plans or IRAs, (characterizing such recommendations or sales as "Investment Advice"). Thus, the BIC applied to all forms of advice to ERISA plans and IRAs involving the purchase or sale of annuities, mutual funds, and virtually all other forms of investment transactions. The BIC, as a separate contract, effectively operated as its own enforcement mechanism creating a new private right of action to enforce the promises made in the BIC.

The SEC's RBI: The proposed RBI imposes a best interest requirement, but only on "recommendations" and sales of securities to "retail customers" (a defined term). The RBI applies to all such recommendations, regardless of the amount or type of compensation paid. It applies to both the "purchase" of a security and the "sale" of a security and specifically applies to transactions involving "rollovers" to IRA plans. Thus only variable annuities or other registered security annuities are subject to the RBI requirements.1 Enforcement of the principles under the RBI will rely on the existing SEC and FINRA enforcement tools.

Q. Are the different standards for what constitutes "best interest" really different under the BIC and the RBI?

A. Yes, clearly, but the differences, according to the SEC's release, are fewer than the similarities. There are two key differences:

The BIC Standards: The BIC exemption had required the acknowledgement of "fiduciary" status of the broker or agent rendering the "investment advice" and established a series of best interest requirements for the advice and sale, including the impartial conduct standards that formed a part of the BIC. These standards are:

  1. Act in the "best interest" of the customer, defined as acting with prudence and loyalty.
  2. Charge only reasonable compensation.
  3. Make no misleading statements.

The RBI Standard: The RBI will require broker-dealers "to act in the best interest of the retail customer at the time a recommendation is made without placing the financial or other interest of the broker-dealer or natural person who is an associated person making the recommendation ahead of the interest of the retail customer."2 It will effectively replace the current broker-dealer "suitability" standard.3 The RBI standard will be met if four component obligations are satisfied:

  1. The Disclosure Obligation — requires brokers to disclose the "scope and terms of the relationship" and all "material conflicts of interest." The SEC release contains an example of a disclosure format — a client relationship summary (CRS) setting forth the capacity, fees and charges, and type and scope of services, as well as the nature of any conflicts of interest.
  2. The Care Obligation — requires broker-dealers to exercise reasonable diligence, care, skill and prudence to:

    1. Understand the potential risks and rewards of a recommendation and have a reasonable basis to believe it is in the best interest of at least some of their retail customers. This "new" obligation will require the broker to be prepared to demonstrate a process of study and comprehension of the product before offering.
    2. Have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendation is in the best interest of the particular retail customer to whom the recommendation is being made. This broker obligation will presumably require analysis of customer information beyond that normally developed in a "suitability" determination?
    3. Have a reasonable basis to believe that, if the broker-dealer is making a series of recommended transactions – that such recommendations, even if in the best interest in isolation, are not excessive and are in the best interest when viewed in total. This is a "new" obligation and raises the question of what information and analysis is required to make such a determination.
  3. The Conflict of Interest obligations contain two related requirements as follows:

    1. Establish and enforce policies to identify, disclose, or eliminate all material conflicts of interest associated with each recommendation covered by RBI.
    2. Establish and enforce policies to identify and disclose and mitigate, or eliminate, material conflicts of interest that arise from financial incentives associated with all recommendations covered by RBI.

Q. What is the likelihood that, by establishing particular detailed standards and obligations, the RBI will raise the possibility of asserting a private right of action for failure to meet its terms?

A. The SEC's release states that it does "not believe" that adopting the proposed RBI will create a new private right of action and adds that it does not "intend such a result."4 We can expect individual claimants in particular transactions involving sales or purchases of securities by brokers to raise the failure to meet the RBI standards in normal FINRA arbitrations. For example, the new care obligations that impose requirements for a broker to have a "reasonable basis" that a particular transaction is in the customer's best interest may well entail requiring brokers to obtain, and make judgments about, a customer's financial status beyond that normally entailed in developing a "suitability" analysis. What are the analytical standards, how can they be reached and how should they be documented?

On the other hand, many of the "best interest" requirements under the care obligation appear to be modest enhancements to existing FINRA standards. For example, since 2012, the standards applicable to the recommendation and sale of complex products5 impose the same two-step process outlined in the RBI; first, determine that the product is suitable for at least some customers, then apply a second step to insure that it is suitable for the particular customer for whom the product is being recommended. To that extent, such standards will not result in any new or novel arguments in the context of a common law fraud or state unfair practices lawsuit.

Further SEC pronouncements on the proposed RBI standards will likely address the Commission's views and direction on these issues.

Q. What are the implications, if any, of creating these new standards as they apply to recommendations involving the purchase or sale of securities on common law complaints involving allegations of state law unfair trade practices or allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty, even if there is no private right of action under the federal securities laws?

A. While acknowledging that the RBI imposes a duty of prudence (see discussion later), the release asserts that the SEC does not intend to impose a duty of "loyalty" which is the second essential component of the "fiduciary" definition. To that end, the SEC's release states that RBI does not anticipate or require a "continuing duty" to monitor — a duty normally associated with the duty of loyalty.6 However, we should note that the SEC's release contains, at various points, a "fiduciary light" standard, without actually using that term. For example, the release in its discussion of the 913 Study provides:

While we are not proposing a uniform fiduciary standard, as recommended in the 913 Study, we nevertheless preliminarily believe that the proposed best interest obligation draws from principles underlying and reflects the underlying intent of many of the recommendations of the 913 Study. As a consequence, we also believe the rule draws upon the duties of loyalty and care as interpreted under Section 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act.7

Numerous other portions of the release include references to fiduciary duties as part of the framework of the broker's responsibilities and history as interpreted by some judicial decisions, such as the following footnote.

Under Regulation Best Interest, as proposed, a broker-dealer's duty to exercise reasonable diligence, care, skill and prudence is designed to be similar to the standard of conduct that has been imposed on broker-dealers found to be acting in a fiduciary capacity.8

Importantly, recent statements from SEC senior staff members suggest that the staff at least sees little difference in the fiduciary standards normally applied to, for example, investment advisers and the new standards under the RBI. For example, the director of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets recently publicly remarked that the "[RBI] result is an enhanced standard of conduct for broker-dealers that applies consistent, fiduciary principles across the spectrum of investment advice, but tailors those principles to existing broker-dealer relationships."9

Q. What is the likelihood of a successful argument in state or federal court attempting to apply a "fiduciary" standard to a normal brokerage transaction due to the broker's obligation to comply with the RBI?

A. Absent a "special relationship," akin to that of investment advisor, succeeding in such an effort would be an uphill battle.

We assume it is likely that the SEC will adhere to its pronouncement that no traditional "fiduciary" duty is called for under the RBI standards. Nonetheless, the continuing rhetoric from the SEC that the RBI establishes principles of conduct that are somehow related or comparable to fiduciary duties could become problematic in future litigation over sales practices and broker conduct in the sale of securities.

However, any assertion of a "fiduciary" standard premised on the conditions in the RBI would be met with both the SEC's public denial of that intent, but perhaps more important with the analysis of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision vacating the DOL's definition of "fiduciary" and the BIC exemption.10 The court there found that the Rule not only conflicted with ERISA's definition of an "investment advice fiduciary," it noted that the Rule, as promulgated, was contrary to the common-law understanding of the term fiduciary as embodying the "touchstone of common law fiduciary status — the parties underlying relationship of trust and confidence." In addition, the court held that use of the term "rendering" of "investment advice for a fee" was consistent with both fiduciary "common law and the structure of the financial industry," describing the clear difference between investment advisers for a fee and brokers and insurance agents collecting a commission.11


1See Regulation Best Interest, SEC Release No. 34-83062 (April 18, 2018) (the "release") at 1, https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2018/34-83062.pdf.

2 Id.

3 Id. at 40-43 ("we are proposing to enhance existing broker-dealer conduct obligations").

4 See release at 42 n.88.

5 See FINRA Regulatory Notice 12-03, http://www.finra.org/industry/notices/12-03.

6 See, e.g., release at 62, 65.

7 Release at 64.

8 Release at 134 n.222.

9 See Remarks of Brett Redfearn at 2018 FINRA Annual Conference, available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/redfearn-remarks-finra-annual-conference-052218.

10 The court's opinion contains a lengthy discussion of the DOL's 1975 Regulatory definition of "fiduciary" under ERISA, citing its standards and application with approval as a correct application of the term "investment advice fiduciary" consistent with the intent of Congress in enacting ERISA, as well as other federal and state legislation and case law since enactment of ERISA. Chamber of Commerce of Am. v. U. S. Dep't of Labor, No. 17-10238, slip op. at 5-7 (5th Cir. March 15, 2018). The court also addressed the Chevron argument by the DOL that the statutory definition is "ambiguous" and its interpretation in the Rule was "reasonable." In rejecting this argument, the court, among other things, noted that the Rule "disregard[s] the essential common law trust and confidence standard" and given "that it took DOL forty years to 'discover' its novel interpretation further highlights the Rule's unreasonableness." Id. at 33.

11 Id. at 14, 19-21.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions