We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!


media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us


Close [x]

Industry News


  • Industry Articles (21,343)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (427)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (809)
  • Wink's Articles (354)
  • Wink's Inside Story (276)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • DOL’s Perez Vows to Fight Mounting Fiduciary Lawsuits

    June 21, 2016 by ThinkAdvisor

    Five lawsuits filed in federal courts in June; former DOL solicitor Scalia asks court for quick action to vacate the rule

    The industry is fighting back against the DOL's fiduciary rule, but Tom Perez isn't backing down. (Illustration: Richard Mia Collection/Theispot.com)

    The industry is fighting back against the DOL’s fiduciary rule, but Tom Perez isn’t backing down. (Illustration: Richard Mia Collection/Theispot.com)

    Labor Secretary Thomas Perez has vowed to “vigorously” defend the department’s rule amending the definition of fiduciary on retirement advice against the mounting lawsuits that were lobbed against the rule in June.

    A total of five lawsuits had been filed by press time. Nine plaintiffs filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 2. They were the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Financial Services Institute, the Financial Services Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Insured Retirement Institute and four Texas groups, including the Texas Association of Business.

    The American Council of Life Insurers and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors said they “reluctantly” filed suit in the same Northern Texas District, while the annuity industry was quick to follow with three more lawsuits in the following days.

    [Editor’s Note: On June 17, the DOL filed a motion to consolidate the three Texas-based lawsuits because they “challenge the same agency rulemaking and present substantially the same legal issues.” On June 20, the plaintiffs agreed to consolidation, but a judge must grant it.]

    The plaintiffs agree to consolidation but want the court to “proceed quickly” as the first deadline approaches in less than…

    The National Association for Fixed Annuities filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and a hearing on that case has been set for Aug. 25.

    The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to stay DOL’s rule amending the definition of fiduciary under ERISA, which is currently scheduled to become operational in April 2017.

    The fourth and fifth legal challenges to the rule were filed by the Indexed Annuity Leadership Council and insurer Market Synergy, based in Kansas. IALC, which is composed of life insurers, filed its lawsuit against DOL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, while Market Synergy filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

    Just as the lawsuits were being filed, President Barack Obama followed through with his promise to veto resolutions under the Congressional Review Act passed by the House and Senate to kill DOL’s rule.


    At least one industry expert maintains that the nine heavyweight plaintiffs represented by the DOL’s former solicitor, Eugene Scalia, waited too long to move on their complaint, and that they are headed for a battle with DOL to have the venue moved from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to Washington.

    Scalia, a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Washington office, who’s the son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, told IA that during his time as DOL solicitor, “I don’t recall a case where we felt we needed to move” venues.

    Scalia added that “we expect to seek a means fairly promptly to be resolved in advance of the [April] compliance deadline.”

    The eight-count suit asks that DOL’s fiduciary rules be “thrown out by the court” and that DOL be “prevented from enforcing the rules,” Scalia said on a separate call with reporters.

    Why Texas? Scalia stated on the call with reporters that the DOL rule’s impact “is nationwide, but it’s very great in Texas. It’s appropriate that [the lawsuit be filed] in a Main Street jurisdiction; it’s not an inside-the-Beltway case.”

    Ken Bentsen, president and CEO of SIFMA, agreed on the call that while all of the trade groups represent members nationwide, about 27,000 advisors in Texas are registered with FINRA and that Texas ranks third in the U.S. in terms of the number of advisors and fourth in the number of broker-dealers, which “underscores the fact that this is a Main Street issue.”

    But Mercer Bullard, professor of law at the University of Mississippi Law School and founder of Fund Democracy, an advocacy group for mutual fund shareholders, told IA that “the plaintiffs have hurt their cause by delaying” filing suit until now. “Why should a court be sympathetic to their request to postpone the effective date when they waited so long to file and then filed where they know there will be a fight over removing the case to D.C.?”

    The groups’ “actions undermine their argument that postponement is necessary,” Bullard said. “It seems they’re betting on the court from the country of Texas ruling for them strictly on political grounds.”

    Bullard added that “the [fiduciary] issue is national; DOL is in D.C., the real plaintiffs are based in D.C.; the faux Texas plaintiffs have no special Texas interest.” Also, the parties to the suit are in Washington, as are the “people who made” the DOL rule. “This is just blatant forum shopping.”


    Scalia, who co-chairs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Group and is a member of its Labor and Employment Practice Group, said the lawsuit first challenges the “definition and meaning” of the word fiduciary.

    “Fiduciary is a very familiar and important word in the legal lexicon,” Scalia said, “and DOL has given it a meaning that is unrecognizable. Our complaint begins with the overbroad definition of fiduciary.”

    The suit also challenges DOL’s oversight of IRAs as well as the rule’s creation of a “private right of action” to bring class-action lawsuits under the Best Interest Contract Exemption, which Scalia called “one of the most troubling aspects” of BICE.

    DOL’s rule, the complaint states, and its prohibited transaction exemptions “overstep the department’s authority, create unwarranted burdens and liabilities, undermine the interests of retirement savers, and are contrary to law.”

    The suit also states that DOL’s fiduciary rule would “upend” the “well-developed regulatory framework” currently enforced by the SEC, state regulators and FINRA. It argues that DOL’s rule will have “harmful consequences for retirement savers, small businesses and tens of thousands of businesses — including many operating in North Texas and the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex — that provide retirement advice, products and services.”

    Market Synergy’s complaint challenges only the department’s conduct in adopting the revisions to prohibited transaction exemption (PTE) 84-24, “which contradicted the revisions announced in the department’s notice of proposed rulemaking.”

    The complaint states that in promulgating the final revisions to PTE 84-24, which make the exemption available to “fixed rate annuities,” as defined by DOL, but not to one class of fixed annuities — specifically, “fixed indexed annuities” — the department “acted without providing adequate notice and an opportunity for comment.” The suit further claims DOL’s action reflected “arbitrary and capricious conduct in excess of its statutory authority and in clear violation of its obligations to make necessary findings under applicable law.”

    Jim Poolman, IALC’s executive director, stated that while the group’s litigation doesn’t dispute that retirement advisors should act in the best interests of their clients, DOL’s rule “will harm millions of hard-working Americans who need the principal protection and lifetime guaranteed income that fixed indexed annuities offer.”

    The final DOL regulation “unfairly targets certain types of fixed annuity products, making it harder for Americans to purchase fixed indexed annuities when it is in their best interest to do so,” he said, adding that “this legal challenge is necessary because the rule creates an unworkable standard for independent agents and insurance companies and goes far beyond DOL’s authority.”


    Industry advocates of DOL’s rule believe the lawsuits will have little impact.

    “It has been clear from the outset of this process that industry groups would challenge the DOL rule in court,” said CFA Director of Investor Protection Barbara Roper.

    “After all, financial firms, such as those represented by these trade associations, are able to earn billions of dollars a year in excess profits under the current regulatory regime,” Roper said. That money “comes directly from the hard-earned retirement savings of American workers and retirees.”

    Added Roper: “We believe the DOL rule is based on a sound legal foundation and their process set the standard for openness, thoroughness and attention to comments submitted. Contrary to the arguments being put forward, DOL has clear authority both to define fiduciary investment advice under ERISA and the tax code, and to set the conditions for any exemptions from the prohibited transaction rules.”

    This article originally appeared at Thinkadvisor.com

    Originally Posted at ThinkAdvisor on June 20, 2016 by ThinkAdvisor.

    Categories: Industry Articles