Rossi and Stevenson v. Becker
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) Amicus Issue: Whether the “related to” bankruptcy removal provision in Section 1452(a) of…
SIFMA is pleased to provide comments regarding the Department of Labor’s (“Department”) proposed regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) that would redefine the term “fiduciary” under section 3(21) of ERISA and section 4975(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). SIFMA appreciates the opportunity to comment and hopes that our comments are helpful to the Department as it assesses the dramatic impact of the proposal on the millions of American investors benefitting today through participation in retirement plans, Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) and other retail accounts. We respectfully request an opportunity to testify at the Department’s August 10-13, 2015 hearing.
Our comments reflect SIFMA’s deep concerns that the Department has proposed a rule that would harm American investors, while completely re-casting the ERISA definition of who is a fiduciary when providing investment advice for a fee. They have greatly expanded the scope of service providers subject to the fiduciary requirements of ERISA and the Code, and the significant prohibited transactions that come with such status under ERISA and the Code, while creating very limited, inflexible, and prescriptive exceptions and exemptions that do not work and will not be in the best interest of American retirement investors. The net effect is that this proposal, if enacted, would limit the ability of Americans to continue to receive personalized investment guidance for retirement plan accounts, which would result in a less secure retirement for so many Americans already struggling to save and invest for their financial futures.
See Also:
United States Department of Labor: Conflict of Interest Proposed Rule
See Also:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) Amicus Issue: Whether the “related to” bankruptcy removal provision in Section 1452(a) of…
Court: U.S. District Court (S.D. Ohio) Amicus Issue: Whether the Federal Reserve’s stress testing framework lacks adequate transparency and public…
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Fourth Circuit) (Rule 23(f) petition) Amicus Issue: Whether class action plaintiffs can satisfy the requirements…