Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Fifth Circuit Vacates DOL Fiduciary Rule
March 31, 2018

On March 15, the Fifth Circuit, in Chamber of Commerce, et. al. v. United States Department of Labor, a 46-page opinion, reversed the district court’s ruling upholding the Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule and vacated the rule. The fiduciary rule is a shorthand definition for a package of seven different rules promulgated by the DOL. The rules reinterpreted the definition of an "investment advice fiduciary," created two new prohibited transaction class exemptions, and significantly modified a number of existing prohibited transaction class exemptions. The Fifth Circuit’s decision essentially moots the fiduciary rule and returns the law to what it was prior to April 2016 when the rule was finalized.

In vacating the rule, the Fifth Circuit determined that the original DOL regulation defining "investment advice" drew an appropriate distinction between "an ‘investment adviser,’ who is a fiduciary regulated under the Investment Advisers Act, and a broker or dealer, whose advice is ‘solely incidental to the conduct of his business as a broker or dealer and who receives no special compensation therefor." In reaching this conclusion, the Fifth Circuit determined that the rule was valid only if it was authorized by ERISA Titles I and II. After extensive analysis, the court determined that it was not.

The Fifth Circuit also relied on "Step 2" of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC that "if [a] statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute." The Fifth Circuit found that not only was the DOL fiduciary rule unreasonable but it was also arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and in excess of statutory authority.

As of publication, it was unclear whether the DOL would request a panel rehearing, an en banc hearing, or ask the Supreme Court to review the decision. It is also unclear what impact, if any, the decision might have on the SEC’s development of its own fiduciary rule or the various state activities (both legislative and regulatory) surrounding this issue.
Authored By
Image: Stephen W. Kraus
Stephen W. Kraus
Related Practices
Financial Services Regulatory
Related Industries
Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.