Now that the Labor Department's new fiduciary rule has been hit with its first lawsuit, others are likely to follow. In the meantime, compliance with the rule marches on as the effective date nears — and advisors should stay the course.
On May 2, the Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice and several independent insurance agents were the first to sue Labor, seeking a preliminary injunction "to stop the new rule from taking effect" during FACC's existing case against Labor's PTE 2020-02 on rollover advice.
Fiduciary advocates see the FACC lawsuit as meritless, but industry officials predict other lawsuits are likely in the offing.
"All options are on the table" when it comes to fighting Labor's new rule, a spokesperson from the American Council of Life Insurers told me in a recent email.
ACLI's "focus now is on scrutinizing the Labor Department's regulatory package and considering what can be done to ensure retirees can access annuities, the only financial product in the marketplace that can provide guaranteed income for life," the spokesperson said.
FACC's lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Tyler.
Labor released its final rule on April 23.
FACC — an advocacy group for independent insurance distributors — is represented by the law firm Figari and Davenport, which also is representing FACC in an earlier lawsuit filed in February 2022 against the DOL that challenges the department's 2020 guidance on who is considered a fiduciary when giving rollover advice.
PTE 2020-02, which was partly overturned by a Florida district court decision, still faces the challenge in court by FACC, which filed its challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
"While we don't know what the outcome will be" of the FACC lawsuit, Fred Reish, partner at Faegre Drinker, said on a recent webcast held by Broadridge, "there will probably be other lawsuits filed. The question is, will they [the lawsuits] set aside the regulation?"
Assuming the FACC case is the only one filed, that case "may not be decided for several years," Reish stated, " … in which case it would mean you'd need to be in compliance [with the new fiduciary rule] because it would be too risky not to be in compliance."
Further, Reish continued, the plaintiffs in the cases "may ask for a stay or a stop of the enforcement of the regulation. That would be injunctive relief. It hasn't been filed yet — that would be extraordinary relief. My guess is that court would not stay the rule."
Between now and Sept. 23, which is the effective date of the new rule, "the only safe answer is to get into compliance with these rules," Reish warned.