We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,225)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (420)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (803)
  • Wink's Articles (354)
  • Wink's Inside Story (275)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Godzilla (the Fiduciary Rule) Ate the Rule of Law: OPINION

    June 1, 2017 by Eugene Scalia

    Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta announced last week that he would let the controversial “fiduciary” rule take effect June 9. Respect for the rule of law, he explained, made further delay impossible without a new round of rule-making.

    Although I disagree with Mr. Acosta’s legal analysis, he is a serious lawyer whose commitment to the rule of law is to be admired. That commitment will face an even greater test in July, when Mr. Acosta and the Justice Department, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, are due to make their first significant court filing defending the fiduciary rule.

    Adopted by the Obama administration last year, the rule radically alters the responsibilities of brokers and insurance agents who service individual retirement accounts. Critics of the rule focus on how it will disrupt the financial-services and insurance industries, raising costs and reducing investors’ options.

    To a lawyer, though, what’s most striking about the rule is that it’s a regulatory Godzilla—an extraordinary example of disregard for limitations imposed by Congress and the Constitution.

    To start, although the rule will transform the market for IRAs, the Labor Department has no authority to regulate IRAs. How, you might ask, is it regulating something that by law it may not?

    Well, Labor has deregulatory authority with respect to IRAs—it can lift restrictions that otherwise apply. So the Labor Department first adopted an overbroad definition of who is a fiduciary, essentially capturing all insurance agents and brokers who deal with IRAs. They automatically became subject to the restrictions Congress places on fiduciaries, effectively barring the receipt of commissions.

    Then the department used its deregulatory authority to make insurance agents and brokers an offer they couldn’t refuse: They could get commissions after all, if they complied with a raft of new requirements designed for IRAs. In this way the Labor Department made itself—not the Securities and Exchange Commission and not state insurance agencies—the principal regulator of financial professionals who service IRAs.

    This is similar to a ploy the Environmental Protection Agency recently tried with greenhouse-gas emissions. The Supreme Court threw out the EPA’s rule, remarking that an agency may not regulate based on “its own sense of how the statute should operate”—an apt description of what Labor did here. For those committed to the rule of law, defending this sort of regulatory self-aggrandizement should be a very bitter pill.

    As should this: A key issue in the fiduciary litigation is the Constitution’s restriction on federal agencies’ ability to create new grounds for people to sue. The Supreme Court held in 2001 that only Congress may create these private rights of action. “Agencies may play the sorcerer’s apprentice,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “but not the sorcerer himself.”

    Congress created no private right of action in the statute governing IRAs. But the Labor Department devised a workaround: As a condition for the “deregulatory” relief that allows the receipt of commissions, firms must enter into contracts with customers in which they agree to be subject to class-action lawsuits. Presto—now, there’s a private right of action.

    In adopting the rule, the Labor Department justified this provision on the ground that the contract, not the regulation, contains the right to sue. But if that sleight of hand is allowed, federal agencies can create private rights of action at will simply by forcing businesses to sign customer contracts opening themselves to class-action liability and even punitive damages.

    The fiduciary rule also attacks arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act generally prohibits federal agencies and states from restricting the use of arbitration. But again the Labor Department used its contract requirement to flout Supreme Court precedent: Under the new rule, the contracts financial firms must enter with customers can’t allow arbitration of claims that could be brought as class-action lawsuits.

    Arbitration restrictions like this ordinarily are anathema to Republicans—and to Mr. Sessions. In 2008 he joined a Senate report that said one antiarbitration bill would expose American businesses to “a rapacious trial bar.”

    But now, in defending the fiduciary rule, the Labor and Justice departments may be paving the way for agencies to outlaw arbitration. A government agency that wants to ban arbitration could simply condition a license, or participation in a government program, on businesses’ signing contracts with customers that invite class-action lawsuits that cannot be arbitrated.

    This ploy wouldn’t be limited to federal agencies. Under the Labor Department’s theory, a state or local government could do away with arbitration tomorrow by making government permits or benefits contingent on forswearing arbitration with customers.

    One of the biggest challenges for any new administration is contending with its predecessor’s priorities and beginning to advance its own. This requires resolve and the dedication to principle that Mr. Acosta rightly extolled. In the weeks ahead, the Labor and Justice departments must give careful thought to how, in defending the fiduciary rule, they could inadvertently be advancing a sweeping assault on the rule of law.

    Mr. Scalia, a former solicitor of the Labor Department, is a lawyer representing clients in a legal challenge to the fiduciary rule.

    Originally Posted at The Wall Street Journal on May 31, 2017 by Eugene Scalia.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency