Talking Through the DOL’s Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemption, Episode 3: The 84-24 Exemption
On June 29, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed prohibited transaction exemption, filling the void left when the Fifth Circuit vacated the Obama-era 2016 DOL regulation in 2018. While the new proposed rule is primarily a class exemption that harmonizes ERISA conditions for receiving commissions and other variable compensation with existing securities law standards, it also does a lot more. In this podcast episode, Faegre Drinker’s Jim Jorden and Brad Campbell discuss how an existing PTE — PTE 84-24 — may impact the future use of this proposed PTE.
In this recording, Jim and Brad provide context, insight and actionable advice for stakeholders on the following questions (and more) related to the proposed PTE.
- How might insurance companies and agents use the new proposed exemption?
- Would independent agents find the 84-24 exemption to be a more user-friendly and expedient exemption to use in most cases?
- What changes can DOL implement to make the proposed exemption a more useful resource?
- The prelude includes some ambiguities on how the “regular basis” component of the five-part test for the investment adviser definition can be met, particularly as it pertains to sales advice. What should the DOL be expected to clarify as it responds to public comments on this proposed rule?
In our next podcast, we will take a close look at litigation and enforcement issues that could emerge from this proposed PTE.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
Meet the Authors
