Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Department of Labor passed a new Fiduciary rule on June 9, 2017, that has shaken up the investment and retirement-advice market. The new rule holds financial advisers who provide investment advice and recommendations in retirement accounts to a fiduciary standard. This fiduciary standard, the on-going duty of care and loyalty, is higher than the previous suitability standard which only required that the investment advice or product was suitable at the time of recommendation. Therefore, when advisers are providing investment advice, they must act in the best interest of their clients in retirement accounts.

The Good: For investors, this new DOL rule should have been passed years ago because as clients, no one wants to be deceived or oversold on unnecessary products. With this new rule’s soft implementation on June 9, an investor can sue an advisor for breaching the fiduciary standard and will have a better chance of winning in court because of that contractual obligation. The obligation instilled in the DOL’s standards “are formal obligations to serve clients’ best interests, to charge only reasonable compensation and to avoid misleading statements,” according to InvestmentNews’ Fiduciary Corner blog by Blaine Akin.

The Bad: For many companies, the DOL rule comes with risks of lawsuits and legal complaints by investors who believe that they have been harmed by a financial adviser’s advice or recommendation of investment. For some companies, the DOL rule has instilled a fear of class-action lawsuits that has caused them to go as far as eliminating certain types of products that their advisers can sell to investors, thus removing the slight risk of conflict of interest which potentially reduces the amount of revenue.

The Ugly: The answer that remains unknown is whether the DOL rule is here to stay. Currently, under the Trump Administration, the DOL rule is undergoing review which could lead to repeal or modification. One argument is that the DOL rule is too complex and costly, and is dangerously close to entering the regulatory space that is traditionally governed by the Securities Exchange Commission. SEC Chair Jay Clayton submitted a six-page comment request asserting that the SEC should govern this regulatory space as provided by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. On June 1, Clayton reached out to DOL Secretary Alexander Acosta to “engage constructively as the Commission moves forward with its examination of the standards of conduct applicable to investment advisers and broker-dealers.”

With many opinions and speculations surrounding the DOL rule, there are only three possibilities ahead: (a) nothing will be changed and the hard implementation will begin next year, (b) there will be changes made to the proposed rule, or (c) the rule will be entirely rescinded. As of now, there are signs that indicate that the final effective date of January 1, 2018, will likely be pushed back with expected changes to the rule. One of those signs is that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce approved legislation that would replace the DOL rule and the House Appropriations Committee approved a DOL spending bill that would prevent funding that enforces the fiduciary rule. Although this indicates that the House plans to kill the DOL rule, there is still no telling what the outcome will be.

Continue ReadingDepartment of Labor Fiduciary Rule: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Things Are Heating Up in Germany

Approximately 60 law students pose for a group photo in front of the law school building at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany.cThe 2017 Summer Session in International and Comparative Law is off to a hot start, matching the temperature in Giessen, Germany.  In this photo, you see a mix of jet-lagged law students from all over the world posing outside of the law school at Justus Liebig University (you can also see me and Professor Anuj Desai from the University of Wisconsin).  The students attended orientation this past Sunday, and then set off on a “city rally” in which small teams of students competed to locate different check-in points located throughout the city of Giessen.  It was a fun way to get introduced to their new surroundings.  Then it was back to the law school for the group photo and a Welcome Dinner.

Our 10 Marquette Law School participants have now joined their classmates (and new friends) from countries that include Brazil, Colombia, Poland, Vietnam, Egypt, and Portugal, and have completed three days of classes.  Interest and enrollment appears equally divided among our four course offerings: 1) International Economic Law and Business Transactions, 2) Comparative Constitutional Law, 3) Business Ethics and Human Rights, and 4) CyberLaw.

Following the last class on Thursday, the students will board buses for a 3 day field trip to Berlin and surrounding sights.  At this pace, the four weeks of the program will fly by.  However, I happen to know that some of the U.S. students have still found time during this first week to visit a local beer garden and participate in a karaoke night.

Our program is open to any law student in the United States attending an accredited law school.  Details on the 10th annual Summer Session, scheduled to begin July 14, 2018, will be available this fall.  Watch this space for course, faculty and tuition information.

Continue ReadingThings Are Heating Up in Germany

Both Sides Now: The Interactive Constitution

Constitution & GavelI recently learned about an amazing feature on the National Constitution Center website: an interactive Constitution. The site contains the entire United States Constitution and all of its amendments.

Click on any part—the Preamble, any of the seven articles, or any of the 27 amendments—and view the text of that part, along with the dates of its signing or passage and its ratification. You’ll also learn if any part of the Constitution was changed by an amendment.  Article I contains several sections that were changed by later amendments. For example, click on the highlighted text in Article I, section 3 (“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote”) to learn that this section was changed by the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct popular election of senators.

The most interesting part, however, is that you’ll also get views from constitutional scholars “across the legal and philosophical spectrum.”

Continue ReadingBoth Sides Now: The Interactive Constitution