ARTICLE
13 August 2019

NY State Supreme Court Upholds NYDFS "Best Interest" Regulation

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.
The New York State Supreme Court recently ruled that the New York Department of Financial Services ("DFS") had the authority to enact an amendment to its rules
United States Finance and Banking

The New York State Supreme Court recently ruled that the New York Department of Financial Services ("DFS") had the authority to enact an amendment to its rules to establish a "best interest" standard for sellers of annuities and life insurance. Superintendent Linda Lacewell highlighted that the DFS is the first insurance regulator to adopt such a standard. The amendment became effective on August 1, 2019 for annuities contracts. The rule becomes effective on February 1, 2020 for life insurance products.

The case challenged DFS authority to adopt the amendment to Regulation 187 (the "Amendment"). The holding, by New York's trial Court, found that the Amendment is a proper exercise of DFS powers, not an attempt to "improperly legislate," and that it is not arbitrary or capricious. The Court stressed that its role was not to "second-guess" DFS as to the efficacy of the amendment, but to consider whether it was within DFS's powers to implement the insurance law - i.e., that if the Amendment is "consistent with enabling legislation and is not so lacking in reason for its promulgation that it is essentially arbitrary, it should be upheld."

Commentary

Steven Lofchie

This is not a good direction for financial regulation. Each state regulator going its own way is like a version of Brexit. The economic consequences of state-by-state regulation for the national market would be significant.

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.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

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