On February 8, 2017, the Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, U.S.D.J., became the third federal judge to reject a challenge to the Fiduciary Rule and BIC Exemption. In Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Edward Hugler, Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, et al., Civil Action No. 16-cv-01476-M, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17619 (N.D.Tex. Feb. 8, 2017), Judge Lynn granted summary judgment in favor of the DOL on the challenge to the ERISA fiduciary rule and BIC Exemption brought by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (“COC”), Indexed Annuity Leadership Council (“IALC”) and the American Council of Life Insurers (“ACLI”) and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) is one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. The district court’s decision can be found at the following link: http://www.investmentnews.com//assets/docs/CI10892728.PDF.
In upholding the Fiduciary Rule and BIC Exemption, Judge Lynn reached the following conclusions:
- First, the Fiduciary Rule is a reasonable interpretation under ERISA and is thus entitled to deference under Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984).
- Second, the DOL did not exceed its authority under ERISA in granting conditional exemptions with respect to the BIC Exemption and amended Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 (“PTE 84-24”);
- Third, with respect to the BIC Exemption’s written contract requirement, the BIC Exemption and PTE 84-24 do not impermissibly create a private cause of action with respect to Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”) clients;
- Fourth, the new rules and the rule making process, including the BIC Exemption itself and the movement of fixed indexed annuities from PTE 84-24 to the BIC Exemption, do not violate the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2017);
- Fifth, the BIC Exemption satisfies the requirements under ERISA for obtaining exemptive relief from a prohibited transaction;
- Sixth, Plaintiffs had waived their right to assert a challenge to the new rules on First Amendment grounds by not raising such a challenge during the rule making process, and even if such a challenge had not been waived, the DOL’s new rules do not violate the First Amendment; and
- Seventh, the portions of the BIC Exemption and PTE 84-24 which require that financial institutions receiving exemptions under them preserve an investor’s right to bring or participate in a class action do not violate the Federal Arbitration Act.