92 pages. "[NAFA] first argues that title I of ERISA does not authorize the Department to impose fiduciary duties on those who advise IRAs.... [W]hen they regulate IRA advisers, PTE 84-24 and the BIC exemption rely on the Department's authority under title II. Second, NAFA argues that title II does not impose fiduciary duties on those who advise IRAs ... But that contention ignores the plain language of the statute, which grants the Department ... broad authority to adopt non-statutory exemptions and to impose conditions on any such exemptions.... Third, NAFA argues that the Department's use of its exemption authority will lead to 'an absurd and irrational result' because it will subject those IRA advisers who are paid on a commission basis (and who must, accordingly, rely on the exemption) to ERISA fiduciary duties, but will not extend those same duties to those who are paid an asset management fee (and who, accordingly, need not rely on the exemption). But, far from irrational, that is precisely the point; in the Department's view, those who are paid on a commission basis may be tempted to make investment recommendations that maximize their compensation while disserving the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. Advisers paid an asset management fee generally will not face this conflict. Finally, NAFA argues that ... the fiduciary standards incorporated in PTE 84-24 and the BIC Exemption would override state insurance law suitability standards.... NAFA ignores the fact that the preemption provisions apply only to title I of ERISA, and thus have no bearing on the scope of the Department's title II authority[.]" [Nat'l Assoc. for Fixed Annuities (NAFA) v. Perez, No. 16-1035 (D.D.C. Nov. 4, 2016)]  MORE >>