President Names DOL Nominee With Deeper Labor Ties

Whoever takes on the role of DOL Secretary will be tasked with overseeing the Trump administration’s response to the forthcoming fiduciary rule reforms. 

Days after the surprise withdrawal of Andrew Puzder as President Trump’s Labor Secretary nominee, the White House is now confirming their new pick for the job, former member of the National Labor Relations Board R. Alexander Acosta.

Acosta is currently Dean of Florida International University Law School, and the Trump administration is highlighting his “long and distinguished career in public service.” Compared with the previous pick, the initial response to the nomination of Acosta has been far more positive, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Background information shared by the White House notes that Acosta has served in three Senate-confirmed positions, including as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. He was the first Hispanic man or women to hold the rank of Assistant Attorney General and went on to serve as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Since 2013, Acosta has also served as Chairman of U.S. Century Bank, the largest domestically owned Hispanic community bank in Florida. Media outlets have widely noted that Acosta, if confirmed, would be the first and only Hispanic member of the president’s cabinet.

President Trump actually began the first solo press conference of his term by naming Acosta as his new nominee. He quickly moved on to other subjects, but the president observed the following of Acosta, as recounted in the official White House transcript of the presser: “He has a law degree from Harvard Law School, was a great student.  Former clerk for Justice Samuel Alito.  And he has had a tremendous career.  He’s a member, and has been a member, of the National Labor Relations Board, and has been through Senate confirmation three times, confirmed—did very, very well.  And so Alex, I’ve wished him the best.  We just spoke.  And he’s going to be—I think he’ll be a tremendous Secretary of Labor.”

Interesting to note, the retirement industry is apparently being a little more cautious this time around about sharing in speculations as to who will finally fill the DOL Secretary role—and when. This is only natural, as so far the effort to fill the leadership role at the agency tasked with enforcing the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has been a rocky effort, with multiple last-minute delays in scheduled confirmation hearings and the outright failure of the first nominee to get through a Senate controlled by Republican allies.

NEXT: Very different response from Puzder 

When the Puzder nomination was first announced, PLANADVISER received a plethora of responses from retirement plan providers, advisory firms and investment managers—all of those closely watching to see whether the DOL will in fact delay or terminate the fiduciary rule before the first deadlines in April. Some praised Puzder’s business experience running a major U.S. fast food franchise, while others questioned whether he would be a good Labor Secretary given accusations of unfair treatment of workers and failures to uphold basic labor standards at his restaurants.

So far the same providers have been more quiet about Acosta’s nomination, undoubtedly left a little uncertain by the first nominee’s shortfall. The most vocal supporters of the nomination at this point have actually been Hispanic and Latino advocacy groups, relieved to see President Trump make a move to improve the diversity of his cabinet.

The effort of checking Acosta’s background has only begun, but at first blush he seems like a pick with a more traditional background suited for the role. And unlike with Puzder, there have yet to emerge any particular points of personal or professional controversy around the nominee in the trade or national media.

It stands to reason that Acosta must be open to rolling back the fiduciary rule if President Trump picked him for the role, but he also has the National Labor Relations Board background to consider. That is the independent government agency with responsibility for enforcing U.S. labor law in relation to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices. It would be a natural extension of such work to take on a role leading DOL, the Trump administration argues.

Sharing some preliminary analysis with PLANADVISER, Nancy Ross, partner and head of ERISA litigation practice at Mayer Brown LLP in Chicago, says that “if confirmed, Acosta's agenda as Secretary of Labor will be primarily driven by his boss.”

“That said, he has a reputation of being a champion of diversity which we may see influence his decisions as Secretary,” she observes. “With respect to benefits, much will also depend on who he selects as his Deputy Secretary of EBSA.  He is less of a known commodity that Puzder, who we knew held strong views against government intermeddling in business.  Given Acosta's years in government, and his familiarity with the courts, he will likely feel more comfortable taking stances on significant benefits issues, and continue the DOL's robust amicus program from the last administration.”

T. Rowe Price Accused of Self-Dealing in 401(k)

The lawsuit alleges the defendants failed to loyally and prudently monitor the fees and performance of 401(k) plan investment options, and simply retained in-house funds to enrich T. Rowe Price.

David G. Feinberg, a participant in the T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the 401(k) plan and all similarly situated plan participants and beneficiaries, as well as all predecessor plans, accusing the firm of self-dealing.

According to the complaint, the defendants favored the economic interests of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. and its affiliates over the interests of their employees in saving for their retirement. “Defendants did so by offering, during the Class Period (February 14, 2011 through judgment in this case), only T. Rowe Price’s own in-house investment funds in its 401(k) Plan. This exclusive relationship provided a windfall to T. Rowe Price affiliates T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and T. Rowe Price Trust Company,” the lawsuit says. These affiliates serve as investment advisers for those funds and collect the fees charged to investors in those funds.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants failed to loyally and prudently monitor the fees and performance of 401(k) plan investment options, and simply retained the in-house funds to enrich T. Rowe Price.

In a statement to PLANADVISER, T. Rowe Price said: “We believe the suit is without merit and intend to defend vigorously.”

The lawsuit also accuses the defendants of frequently offering the higher cost retail class versions of their mutual funds in the 401(k) plan despite the fact that significantly cheaper versions of these funds were available, including institutional share classes, collective investment trusts, and separately managed accounts. In addition, the complaint says, “In those instances when cheaper alternatives to certain retail class mutual funds did not exist, Defendants could have used the fact that the 401(k) Plan was a large institutional investor as leverage in negotiations to create cheaper alternatives.”

NEXT: Participants treated differently than commercial customers

The lawsuit says the defendants offered more expensive classes of collective investment trusts to 401(k) plan participants than they made available to their commercial customers. In addition, the complaint accuses defendants of offering investment management services for some of their collective investment trusts and institutional mutual funds to commercial customers as a sub-adviser for less cost than charged to the plan. “In so doing, Defendants provided the identical services to 401(k) Plan participants while using their role as fiduciaries to collect higher fees than they otherwise could from third-parties,” the complaint says.

The lawsuit claims that as a result of defendants’ fiduciary breaches and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 401(k) plan participants were deprived of millions of dollars in retirement savings that they would have earned if funds had been selected irrespective of their affiliation.

As an example, the complaint suggests that if funds from other established fund companies, such as Vanguard Investments, had been used instead, participants' fees would have been reduced by $27 million or more during the class period. If such funds had, instead, been offered to participants in those asset classes and investment fund categories in which T. Rowe Price performance is weak, participants' earnings would have increased by $123 million or more.

The lawsuit also notes that at the inception of the class period, the 401(k) plan exclusively held T. Rowe Price proprietary funds, and almost all of these were the expensive retail class versions of T. Rowe Price mutual funds. It accuses the plan trustees of breaching their fiduciary duties under ERISA by either failing to remedy their predecessors’ breaches, or, in a few cases of offering expensive retail class versions of proprietary mutual funds, waiting too long to act to shift into lower cost versions of the funds.  

The lawsuit seeks relief including disgorgement of all investment advisory fees paid to T. Rowe Price and/or its subsidiaries from 401(k) plan assets, as well as the difference in performance between readily available and better performing non-proprietary funds that could have been offered in the 401(k) plan. It says that during the class period, 401(k) plan participants paid TRP Associates in excess of $50 million in fees.

«