Several of my colleagues and I have provided comments to the DOL about its proposal to require a 408(b)(2) guide Most other commentators have or will be addressing the policy issue — is it a good idea to require a guide or not? We avoided the policy issues. Instead, our comments focused on making the requirements clear and implementable — if the guide requirement is adopted.
For example, we asked that the DOL clarify the requirement to “furnish” a guide and “disclose” changes to the guide later on. In raising this question, our concern is that the language in the proposal may not clearly express the DOL’s intent. Without clarity on the meaning of these terms, a service provider might inadvertently violate the requirement. Since the regulation is a prohibited transaction exemption, an unambiguous statement of the requirements is essential for us to be able to properly advise our clients on how to comply.
There are a number of other areas on which we requested clarification if the proposal is finalized. A copy of our comments can be accessed here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/234166566/060214-Ltr-to-DOL-Re-Proposed-Guide. The signers of the letter other than me were Bruce Ashton, Brad Campbell, Joan Neri and Josh Waldbeser.
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.
To automatically receive these articles in your inbox, simply SIGN UP for a subscription and new articles will be emailed to you.