In Practice August 25, 2022

A Guide to the SEC’s Reg BI Bulletins

In a recent bulletin, the SEC warns that practically all financial professionals have at least some conflicts of interest with their retail investors.

Reported by

This year, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission has published a series of interpretive bulletins providing additional compliance guidance for broker/dealers and investment advisers subject to the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

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

Almost two years after the rule’s effective date, the SEC has also brought the first known enforcement action specifically alleging violations of Reg BI. Attorneys say the charges represent a milestone for the brokerage and advisory industries, in part because of the moment’s symbolic force, but also because of what industry practitioners can take away from the situation. As Issa Hanna, a partner at Eversheds Sutherland, puts it, the enforcement action and the staff bulletins clearly demonstrate the serious compliance obligations at the heart of Reg BI.

Now, two attorneys with the Wagner Law Group, Stephen Wilkes and Seth Gaudreau, have issued their own compliance alert, in which they dissect the recent Reg BI bulletins and offer insight to advisers and brokers subject to the expansive regulation.  

What Is a Conflict of Interest?

The SEC bulletin defines a “conflict of interest” under Reg BI and the fiduciary standard as any interest that might incline a broker/dealer or investment adviser—consciously or unconsciously—to make a recommendation or render advice that is not disinterested.

“The staff further states that firms need to take a proactive approach that is not only robust and ongoing but is tailored to each conflict and not merely a ‘check the box’ exercise,” the Wagner attorneys wrote.

According to Wilkes’ and Gaudreau’s analysis, the SEC staff has expressed a clear view that all broker/dealers, investment advisers and financial professionals have “at least some” conflicts of interest with their relationships with retail investors. In the staff’s estimation, the economic incentives for firms and financial professionals to recommend various products and services that may not be in a retail investor’s best interest create substantial conflicts of interest.

“The staff also clarifies that under Reg BI not only must broker/dealers establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify all conflicts of interest—they must also identify conflicts of interest on an ongoing basis,” Wilkes and Gaudreau wrote.   

Disclosure Alone Does Not Suffice

The attorneys’ analysis posits that disclosures alone do not satisfy the obligation to act in the retail investor’s best interest, and any conflicts should and must be mitigated or eliminated.

As the attorneys noted, Reg BI requires broker/dealers to have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and eliminate any sales contests, sales quotas, bonuses and noncash compensation that are based on the sales of specific securities or specific types of securities within a limited period of time.

Under the Investment Advisers Act, the attorneys wrote, such conflicts of interest must be “fully and fairly disclosed” to allow a client to provide informed consent. If such informed consent cannot be obtained, they warned, then the conflict needs to be eliminated.

“The bulletin provides a generalized example that firms with compensation and incentive programs, based on benchmarks, quotas or other performance metrics, whose benefits are seen to influence a financial professional’s decision regarding a retail investor’s interests, will be scrutinized by the SEC,” the Wagner attorneys explained. “The staff has concerns that the level of rewards associated with these programs calls into question whether they comply with Reg BI and the fiduciary standard. Firms should consider whether such programs need to be reduced or eliminated.”

Disclosures Aren’t ‘Check-the-Box’

Wilkes and Gaudreau emphasized that specific conflicts need to be disclosed in “plain English” and tailored to a firm’s business models and compensation structures—as well as to the different products offered.

“The staff warns that generalized disclosures that a conflict ‘may’ exist is not a sufficient disclosure where a conflict exists,” they wrote. “In cases where the nature and extent of the conflict make it difficult to convey the material facts or effects of the conflict, then it cannot be fully and fairly disclosed and a firm should consider mitigation or elimination of the conflict.”

The staff bulletin provides best practices and a “nonexhaustive” list of examples that need to be disclosed, the attorneys observed, highlighting the fact that addressing conflicts is not a single exercise.

“Firms need to monitor conflicts of interest over time and periodically assess the adequacy and effectiveness of their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Reg BI and the fiduciary standard,” the attorneys concluded. “[The SEC] further states the importance of documenting the measures a firm has taken to address and monitor conflicts of interest, in order to show that the firm and its financial professionals are not placing their interests ahead of retail investors.”

Compliance August 25, 2022

Plaintiffs Allege AME Church Plan Agreed to ERISA Status

The consolidated class action complaint suggests the church plan at issue is an ERISA plan because the summary plan document clearly states that it is.

Reported by

Members of the African Methodist Episcopal Church have filed a consolidated class action complaint alleging retirement plan fiduciary breaches under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

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

The complaint follows a proposed class action lawsuit against named plan fiduciaries that was filed earlier this year. The lawsuit alleges fiduciary breach charges against the defendants, the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan; the third-party administrator of the plan, Newport Group; Symetra Life Insurance Company; and Reverend Jerome Harris, the executive director of the AMEC Department of Retirement Services from 2000 until June 2021, among others.

“For nearly two decades, defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in negligent conduct—permitting a single individual to exercise unsupervised control in managing the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan and the fund of retirement assets associated with the plan,” the complaint states. “Defendant Harris made a series of self-dealing, illegal, and/or risky investments without any oversight from the African Methodist Episcopal Church and its ministers.”

The defendants are being sued for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and unjust enrichment, among other allegations.

“Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of AMEC ministers and other employees who, as a result of defendants’ catastrophic failures to protect their retirement accounts in the plan, collectively lost tens of millions of dollars in career retirement savings,” the complaint states.

ERISA or Not ERISA?

At issue in the lawsuit is the AMEC 401(k) retirement plan for eligible employees. The church 401(k) plan was established in 2003 for eligible employees who wished to contribute savings for their retirement, the complaint states.

In 2005, AMEC consolidated various governing documents of three retirement plans into a single 401(k) plan, the Ministerial Annuity Plan of the African Methodist Episcopal Church sponsored by AMEC. Earlier iterations had established three retirement plan levels.

Per IRS rules, church plans are often not subject to rules and regulations under ERISA.

According to the IRS, “A plan that meets the definition of a church plan in IRC Section 414(e) is exempt from certain requirements imposed on other tax-qualified retirement plans under the Internal Revenue Code. However, a church plan sponsor can elect under IRC Section 410(d) to have the plan treated as though it were not an exempt church plan.”

The complaint similarly states, “As a church plan, the plan is exempted from ERISA unless it affirmatively elected to be governed by ERISA.”

Plaintiffs allege that the church plan is an ERISA plan because the summary plan document clearly states that it is. They further allege that the AMEC 401(k) retirement summary plan document—located on the church’s website for church employees—is the only summary plan description issued by AMEC.

“On its first page, the plan’s SPD declares that ‘the plan is subject to federal laws, such as ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act),’” the complaint states. “In addition, the Summary Plan Description, as well as other written communications to the church’s clergy and other employees, including the Church’s Doctrine and Discipline—published every four years to provide clergy and church members updated information on church beliefs, teachings and practices—all expressly state that the plan is an ERISA plan, and is to be operated in full compliance with ERISA.”

The consolidated class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. A request for comment to the AMEC Department of Retirement Services was not returned.

«