United States: The DOL Fiduciary Rule: Charting A Course, Avoiding Collisions & Potential Litigation Q&A #2

Last Updated: August 29 2017
Article by James F. Jorden

Q&As on Annuity Sales Practices, 'Investment Advice' and Litigation



Last month, we wrote about potential litigation issues under the "revised temporary" DOL Rule involving the offer and sale of annuities in the IRA market. This paper continues that discussion. I emphasize to the reader that the questions, and the answers below are limited to the Rule's impact during this "temporary" period, which appears will be extended for an additional twelve months, at least. This is particularly true for our discussion of class action litigation issues. Recent reports of actions taken by the administration in one of the lawsuits challenging the rule indicate that the "no class action waiver" requirement for the BIC will be scuttled. The impact of that action will likely result in the use of such waivers – mooting, in those instances, certain of our questions and predictions.

Our earlier discussion on the impact of using either the BIC exemption or PTE 84-24 raised additional issues that we address below. In addition, we previously asked whether a "fiduciary" claim involving sales of annuities to an IRA could be brought in a state court under state laws governing fiduciary conduct. We also asked whether a class action could be pursued under state fiduciary standards. In this month's Q&As on the Rule, we expand on those topics and raise several other litigation issues to consider.

Here are last month's Questions, with supplemental answers based on comments we received, and several new Q&As:

Q. We asked, "Does it make a difference, from a potential litigation perspective, whether a commissioned sale of an annuity to an IRA relies on Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 84-24 or the best interest contract (BIC) for its exemption?" We answered, probably not. We noted that 84-24 requires written disclosure of "material conflicts," but the BIC does not. Since then we have been asked whether this difference might potentially impact future litigation risks, depending on which exemption the sales entity relies on.

A. Again, we think probably not. As we stated earlier, under either the BIC or PTE 84-24, the Impartial Conduct Standards will apply to the sale and the potential exists for litigation asserting the violation of "fiduciary" duties. Under the DOL's Impartial Conduct Standards, financial institutions and advisers must "make no misleading statements about compensation, and conflicts of interest." A written disclosure is required to be made under 84-24, but, as some observers have pointed out, none is required under the temporary BIC. However, 84-24 states that the sales agent or broker's "failure to disclose a Material Conflict of Interest relevant to the services it is providing or other actions it is taking in relation to a Plan's or IRA owner's investment decisions is considered a misleading statement." We assume that, the DOL, for the sake of consistency, would apply this position regarding affirmative disclosure of material conflicts to any IRA transaction regardless of which exemption the selling entity relies on, and during the transition period as well.

One final point on this issue. As we have previously pointed out, for IRA transactions, any litigation to enforce "fiduciary" duties would have to be pursued in state court under state law fiduciary standards, which may or may not incorporate the standards established under the DOL's Fiduciary Rule. We continue to believe that a plaintiff's pleadings in some future allegation of a fiduciary breach involving IRA sales, where no federal cause of action exists, are likely to focus primarily on the applicable fiduciary standards under state law, which typically involve requirements for disclosure of material conflicts.

Q. In our last article, we also asked: Can we assume that all state courts, when confronted with an IRA sale not tethered to existing ERISA case law and principles, will nonetheless conclude that the DOL's "Best Interest" standard must necessarily be followed in determining the boundaries of any "fiduciary duty" assumed by the agent or broker for the sale under state law? Does the creation of this fiduciary duty under the DOL's exemption result in a potential cause of action at all under state law? If so, what state law or duties will be applied if and when a purchaser chooses to attempt to enforce that fiduciary duty in a state court litigation?

A. Our answer was, It depends. After outlining existing state law and state judicial precedents, we concluded that "there are 50 state laws governing fiduciary conduct, and numerous variations from state to state on how those standards should be applied." Based on existing precedents, there is a very real possibility that state courts and federal courts sitting in diversity will refuse to impose a state law fiduciary duty absent other indicia of a fiduciary relationship during the transaction. Our Q&A below addresses this issue in more detail.

Q. What are the primary areas of concern during the transition period for litigation, particularly class action litigation, involving financial institutions and advisers under the DOL's temporary rule?

A. One concern is that by virtue of a financial institution or adviser being treated as an "investment adviser" fiduciary for purposes of ERISA, plaintiffs will argue that status in assessing the application of state law relationship characteristics that give rise to fiduciary status. It is likely that any litigation, particularly any class action litigation against advisers and financial institutions, will allege that the defendant(s) are, by definition, investment advisers and therefore have a heightened duty — likely a fiduciary duty — to adhere to applicable fiduciary standards. This concern is tempered by the recognition that in virtually all states we have considered, the state law investment adviser standards apply only to sales of securities and that, regardless of the theory propounded, state courts will ultimately rely on more traditional standards for determining fiduciary status, such as those we referenced in our citation to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Yenchi v. Ameriprise. In that case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, characterized the standards for establishing a "fiduciary" relationship as follows:

 "Where no fiduciary relationship exists as a matter of law, Pennsylvania courts have nevertheless long recognized the existence of confidential relationships in circumstances where equity compels that we do so. . . . The circumstances in which [such] confidential relationships have been recognized are fact specific and cannot be reduced to a particular set of facts or circumstances."[i]

That said, the labeling of insurance agents and affiliated financial institutions as fiduciary investment advisers under ERISA presents an additional concern that needs to be addressed and protected against, lest it become a touchstone for applying fiduciary standards under state law.

Q. What is the likelihood of a class action complaint for breach of fiduciary duty being certified by a state court — assuming application of traditional standards of "commonality" to the certification decision? And, as a corollary to that question, what is the likelihood of a plaintiff making a case for certification of a nationwide class?

A. Our experience with class action theories premised on state law claims of fiduciary violations is that such claims are difficult to assert and support on behalf of a class of persons. The reason is that under most circumstances, establishing a fiduciary relationship in a given transaction requires demonstrating the creation of a special, unique relationship between the alleged fiduciary and the alleged beneficiary. Normally, the sale of an investment or similar complex consumer product, and the interactions between the consumer and the agent involved would not lend themselves to a common set of facts. However, during the past 10 years, several federal court fiduciary claims were allowed to proceed through class certification.[ii] Most recently, in Abbit v. ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company,[iii] the class allegation was for improper sales of annuities both as to product structure and sales practices. One count was for breach of fiduciary duty by the insurer. A series of motions followed, ultimately resulting in a complete victory for the insurer, but not before the federal district court in California denied a motion to dismiss the fiduciary count and then certified the "fiduciary" class. The court recognized that "under California law, the relationship between an insurer and a prospective insured is not a fiduciary relationship" but nonetheless denied the motion based on the plaintiff's allegations of targeting seniors.[iv] The court later certified the class on the basis that common legal and factual questions existed as to "whether ING owed a special and/or fiduciary obligation to senior citizens and retirees" for sale of its annuities.[v]

The same court recently granted ING's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims. Most interesting for our purposes is the court's analysis of why it dismissed these claims on the motion for summary judgment. The court first acknowledged that the "California courts have refrained from characterizing the insurer-insured relationship as a fiduciary one."[vi] In an extensive discussion, the court concluded that plaintiffs had not produced evidence of actions by ING to support creation of a "fiduciary relationship that would not otherwise exist as a matter of law."[vii] Included in the court's analysis is a two page footnote addressing plaintiff's attempt to use the DOL Rule as support for its fiduciary arguments. In rejecting the plaintiff's analysis, the court stated:

"Plaintiff misreads the DOL rules...as requiring FIA issuers....to adhere to fiduciary responsibilities and as creating a fiduciary relationship with every purchase of an FIA. In addition, neither the second or third DOL rules apply to Defendants in the manner Plaintiffs asserts, as Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with investment advice. (Emphasis supplied) ING at 28)."[viii]

Q. Would a plaintiff face other issues in attempting to certify a national class of purchasers?

A. Yes. Among other potential issues, given the differences in state law fiduciary standards and the definition of "investment adviser" from state to state, there would be no "common" law to apply to all transactions within the class. In most states, this lack of commonality or cohesiveness would preclude certification.

Q. In the scenarios described above, will the financial institution (or insurer), as well as the insurance agent, face potential claims of fiduciary breach, given that it is unlikely the institution itself has established the requisite relationship of trust and dominance?

A. We will address that question in more detail next month. The Yenchi and Abbit cases discussed above did allege that the financial institution was a fiduciary. In any event, we do recommend that sales practice standards established by any financial institution be clear to reflect that each sale is unique and that the sales agent/broker should follow procedures that insure the recommendations and sales practices are tailored to the individual investor — recognizing that no two investors are identical. (In our September edition, we will provide specific continuing recommendations for broker-dealers, insurers, and other financial institutions as defined in the DOL's Rule).

Footnortes



[i] Yenchi, 61 A.3d at 820.
[ii] See e.g. Abbit v. ING USA Annuity & Life Ins. Co., No. 3:13–cv–02310–GPC–WVG , 2017 WL 2123616 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2017); see also Negrete v. Fidelity & Guar. Life Ins. Co., 444 F. Supp. 2d 998 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
[iii] Abbit v. ING USA Annuity & Life Ins. Co., No.: 3:13–cv–02310–GPC–WVG , 2017 WL 2123616 (May 16, 2017).
[iv] Abbit v. ING USA Annuity & Life Ins. Co., 999 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1199 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (internal citation omitted).
[v] Abbit v. ING USA Annuity & Life Ins. Co., No. 13cv2310–GPC–WVG, 2015 WL 7272220 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015).
[vi] Abbit, 2017 WL 2123616 at *14.
[vii] Id. at *15. The court also cited to In re Conseco Ins. Co. Annuity Mktg.& Sales Practices Litig., 2007 WL 48637 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2007) and Solomon v. N. Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1998) for the proposition that "an insurer owes no fiduciary duty to its insured under California law."
[viii] Abbit, 2017 WL 2123616 at *14 n.7 (emphasis added).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions