[ad_1]
What You Must Know
- Sen. Invoice Cassidy and Rep. Virginia Foxx informed Julie Su they oppose Labor’s efforts to put in writing a brand new fiduciary rule.
- Over the past two years, Labor has espoused a minimum of three separate positions on what it means to be an funding recommendation fiduciary, the lawmakers stated.
- President Biden’s DOL continues to alter its stance on this fiduciary recommendation space, the lawmakers argue.
High lawmakers on the Senate Well being, Training, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and the Home Training and the Workforce Committee informed Performing Labor Secretary Julie Su on Thursday to “stop additional motion” on a brand new fiduciary rule.
Sen. Invoice Cassidy, R-La., rating member of the HELP Committee, and Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., chairwoman of the Training and the Workforce Committee, informed Su in a letter that they oppose Labor’s persevering with efforts to promulgate a rule on “Battle of Curiosity in Funding Recommendation” to revise the definition of fiduciary beneath Part 3(21) of the Worker Retirement Revenue Safety Act.
“Over the past two years, the Division has espoused a minimum of three separate positions on what it means to be an funding recommendation fiduciary,” the lawmakers wrote. “By failing to articulate itself persistently, the Division has created pointless instability for retirement plans, retirees, and savers.”
Labor’s “misguided efforts to revise the definition of funding recommendation fiduciary have created confusion within the market and unwarranted compliance bills,” the lawmakers continued.
For example, they pointed to the latest opinion by the U.S. District Court docket for the Southern District of New York criticizing the Division “for its shifting interpretations on fiduciary funding recommendation.”
Particularly, the lawmakers identified that the Court docket acknowledged, “How, then, ought to the Court docket interpret the funding recommendation fiduciary provisions in mild of DOL’s shifting interpretations? There isn’t any DOL interpretation binding on this court docket.”
[ad_2]
