ARTICLE
9 July 2019

House Passes Bill To Block SEC's "Retail Best Interest" Rulemaking Package

CW
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Contributor

Cadwalader, established in 1792, serves a diverse client base, including many of the world's leading financial institutions, funds and corporations. With offices in the United States and Europe, Cadwalader offers legal representation in antitrust, banking, corporate finance, corporate governance, executive compensation, financial restructuring, intellectual property, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, private wealth, real estate, regulation, securitization, structured finance, tax and white collar defense.
In a 224 to 196 vote, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill that would prohibit the SEC from implementing, administering, enforcing or...
United States Corporate/Commercial Law

In a 224 to 196 vote, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill that would prohibit the SEC from implementing, administering, enforcing or publicizing Regulation BI and related rules and interpretations recently adopted by the SEC. (As previously covered, the rulemaking package consists of (i) Regulation Best Interest ("Reg. BI"), (ii) the Form CRS Relationship Summary, (iii) an interpretation of investment advisers' fiduciary duty and (iv) an interpretation of the "solely incidental" prong of the broker-dealer exclusion under the Advisers Act.)

Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), chair of the House Financial Services Committee, and who introduced the amendment, had previously issued a statement critical of these rules. The "de-funding" approach is similar to an approach taken in the previous Congress with respect to the "fiduciary" rules adopted by the Department of Labor.

SIFMA urged members of Congress to vote "no" on the amendment, praising Reg. BI. SIFMA argued that regardless of whether Congress does block Reg. BI funding, firms still would be required to follow the rule. However, SIFMA warned, in that scenario (i) firms and customers would not be able to receive any guidance or education from the SEC, and (ii) the SEC would not be able to pursue any enforcement actions under Reg. BI.

Commentary / Steven Lofchie

This act by the House sends a very loud message. The contents of the message are, however, not clear.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More