In its brief, the Washington Legal Foundation contends the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota erred by holding at the preliminary injunction stage that the plaintiffs’ facial challenge to the Persuader Advice Exemption Rule can succeed only by showing that the rule would be invalid in all of its applications.
WLF to Arkansas federal court: U.S. Department of Labor’s ‘persuader rule’ is too ‘aggressive,’ should be struck down
The Washington Legal Foundation, a D.C.-based public interest law firm, recently filed an amicus brief in Associated Builders and Contractors of Arkansas v. Perez. The foundation, citing a recent Texas federal court ruling, argues the new Persuader Advice Exemption Rule violates First Amendment protections.
U.S. DOJ defends Labor Department’s fiduciary rule in court filing, says injunction would be ‘detrimental’
Last month, the National Association for Fixed Annuities, or NAFA, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The DOJ, on behalf of the DOL and Perez, filed its own proposed order with the D.C. federal court last week, arguing the rule is necessary to “safeguard the retirement savings of millions of American consumers.”
The new Persuader Advice Exemption Rule requires that employers and the consultants they hire file reports not only for direct persuader activities -- i.e. consultants talking to workers -- but also for indirect persuader activities -- consultants scripting what managers and supervisors say to workers.
Last month, the U.S. Department of Labor announced its final fiduciary rule, sometimes referred to as the conflicts of interest rule. The rule mandates financial professionals who service individual retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401(k) plans, to serve the “best interest” of the savers and disclose conflicts of interest.