- 11,457
Court Issues Mandate Officially Killing DOL Fiduciary Rule
It's about time that it was OFFICIALLY declared dead.
It's about time that it was OFFICIALLY declared dead.
Ding! Dong! The Rule is OFFICIALLY Dead!
- Thread starter DHK
- Start date
- 544
I kind of stopped following the news over the past year or so. Who was appealing the decision in court? How did it get overturned?
Actually it could still pass - they just can't have an unconstitutionally appointed judge make a ruling on it - which the case appeal was about.
Summit Compliance
New Member
- 6
Interestingly enough, the saga has continued! Barbara Lynn, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, issued an order advising anyone seeking “further relief” to let the court know by July 12. That means today is the deadline for any action - it's possible that other states could come in and request action, but the hours are ticking.....
Last edited:
- 5,884
The DOL is dead... long live the DOL!
Summit Compliance
New Member
- 6
According to K&L Gates Law firm, "...a check of the court docket on PACER this morning shows nothing else filed before the July 12 deadline, including nothing from the DOL or any attempted intervenor on the Defendant’s side. So, unless there is a delayed upload of some document, it appears that no party seeks further relief and the case will be closed."
That's all, folks!
That's all, folks!
- 5,884
Tim Resnick
Super Genius
- 129
(for some reason, OP's original link is dead)
Can someone verify this.
Ok...i'm not totally up on this rule, but i believe it had something to do with Insurance agents also being licensed to sell securities if they sold 'Annuities?"
Correct?
Can someone verify this.
Ok...i'm not totally up on this rule, but i believe it had something to do with Insurance agents also being licensed to sell securities if they sold 'Annuities?"
Correct?
- Thread starter
- #9
- 11,457
Ding Dong—the Fiduciary Rule Is Officially Dead
You may be confusing the DOL ruling with the old 151a from years ago.
This had to do with insurance agents being held to a fiduciary duty when selling annuities - including commission disclosures. The biggest problem would be the additional compliance costs as well as the real potential of being sued by voracious attorneys seeing a new target.
The spirit of the ruling wasn't in question - as it was geared towards "product pushers" as compared to those who do a comprehensive job of retirement income planning.
You may be confusing the DOL ruling with the old 151a from years ago.
This had to do with insurance agents being held to a fiduciary duty when selling annuities - including commission disclosures. The biggest problem would be the additional compliance costs as well as the real potential of being sued by voracious attorneys seeing a new target.
The spirit of the ruling wasn't in question - as it was geared towards "product pushers" as compared to those who do a comprehensive job of retirement income planning.
Tim Resnick
Super Genius
- 129
Yes...thank you DHK.
I mis-spoke, you are referring to same rule. SO, the 'fiduciary' requirement was not passed, nor the commission disclosures.
It was my understanding that many agent's were getting licensed as Registered Advisor (i think i got that part right), to be able to transfer funds and advise clients on a fee basis, only.
Correct me if i'm wrong and Thanks for your Input !
