The courtroom’s choice “is instrumentally helpful for advocates of stronger fiduciary protections in funding recommendation to make that case,” Tierney stated.
Certainly, Ron Rhoades, affiliate professor of finance at Western Kentucky College and director of its private monetary planning program, stated in a latest electronic mail that Reg BI “doesn’t impose a fiduciary obligation of loyalty” however “a brand new ‘finest curiosity’ obligation that’s nonetheless within the means of being outlined and utilized.”
With a brand new DOL fiduciary rule on the horizon, he stated, “the fiduciary battlegrounds will proceed to be energetic spheres the place pro-fiduciary advocates will likely be pitted towards corporations whose financial fashions are threatened by the fiduciary normal.”
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courtroom choice “provides extra traction to the continued motion within the market, aided by fiduciary advocates and federal and state securities regulators, to maneuver towards a bona fide fiduciary normal,“ in accordance with Rhoades.
A very powerful facet of the Massachusetts choice, in accordance with Rhoades, “is that states will not be preempted from adopting fiduciary normal by federal securities legal guidelines,“ nor by the SEC’s adoption of Reg BI.
Whereas the Massachusetts choice “is just not binding upon different state courts, nor on the federal courts, its precedent could nicely give impetus to no less than a couple of different states to undertake fiduciary requirements for broker-dealers when offering funding recommendation to retail purchasers.“
An alert from the legislation agency Ropes & Grey concurred that the Massachusetts ruling “leaves the door open for different state regulators to set extra demanding requirements relevant to broker-dealers working of their states,“ and “raises a considerable menace of the very ‘patchwork of inconsistent state-level requirements’“ of which former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton warned.
Additional litigation in different state or federal jurisdictions could search to problem this reasoning.
The Ropes & Grey alert additionally warns that the Massachusetts ruling additionally applies to funding suggestions or recommendation offered from exterior the state through the web.
For nationwide broker-dealers, together with these working web platforms, the choice “additional complicates compliance and will increase related prices in states that impose obligations, just like the Massachusetts Fiduciary Rule, that reach past Regulation BI’s obligations,” the alert stated.
“Specific consideration will likely be required to evaluate what types of communications by broker-dealers concerning funding alternatives to retail traders will be construed as funding suggestions or recommendation topic to heightened state-level requirements,” the agency wrote.
For instance, in Robinhood’s case, Galvin “claimed Robinhood had inspired frequent, dangerous, and unsuitable buying and selling by retail traders, printed funding classes like ‘100 Most In style’ or ‘Prime Movers,’ carried out methods to incentivize buyer engagement with its buying and selling platform, and that every of those practices was tantamount to creating funding suggestions to prospects,” the alert stated.
Robinhood’s defenses to those arguments, the agency wrote, “have but to be addressed by the trial courtroom or within the Secretary’s administrative proceedings — because the litigation thus far has centered on the legality of the Massachusetts Fiduciary Rule itself, not its utility to Robinhood’s enterprise.”