DOL Issues Final Rule on Proxy Voting and Shareholder Rights

The final regulation includes delayed compliance dates to January 31, 2022, for certain recordkeeping and proxy voting requirements.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has announced a final rule establishing a regulatory framework for private employee benefit plans’ fiduciaries to follow when they exercise shareholder rights, including proxy voting, and select and monitor proxy advisory firms.

The DOL says the final rule will benefit plan participants and beneficiaries by ensuring that the individuals responsible for the retirement savings of millions of American workers are putting workers’ financial interests first when deciding whether and how to vote proxies, and that they are advancing prudent management of plan assets.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

“The final rule will help managers of retirement plans fulfill their duties of prudence and loyalty to American workers and retirees when voting proxies and exercising other shareholder rights,” U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia said in a statement. “The rule reflects modifications in response to rulemaking comments in order to establish appropriately tailored safeguards for employee benefit plans using a principles-based approach.”

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Jeanne Klinefelter Wilson added: “ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] plan fiduciaries must put the growth and security of workers’ retirement savings first. This rule will help ERISA plan fiduciaries follow the law and navigate their prudence and loyalty duties when exercising shareholder rights and obligations.”

The final rule confirms that proxy voting decisions and other exercises of shareholder rights must be solely in the interest of providing plan benefits to participants and beneficiaries considering the impact of any costs involved. It ensures that plan fiduciaries do not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial benefits under the plan to any non-pecuniary objective or promote non-pecuniary benefits or goals.

The DOL says the rule will also improve fiduciary practices relating to the selection and monitoring of proxy advisory firms. It adds that any cost savings or other benefits to plans will flow to participants and beneficiaries in the form of more secure retirement income.

The DOL estimates that the costs of these provisions will be small or will be offset by cost savings on a per plan basis.

When the DOL first issued its proposed rule on benefit plan proxy voting, some retirement industry stakeholders voiced concern that it risked seriously chilling proxy voting activities and other forms of shareholder engagement executed by investment managers and other parties on behalf of retirement plan investors.

The new rule follows the DOL’s recent regulation that confirmed fiduciaries must select investments solely in accordance with workers’ economic interests, i.e. only pecuniary factors.

The DOL settled upon the final proxy voting rule after reviewing approximately 300 written comments and 6,700 form letters from a diverse set of stakeholders, including plan sponsors and fiduciaries, individual plan participants and beneficiaries, financial services companies, elected governmental officials, and trade and industry associations.

The final rule will be effective 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register. It includes delayed compliance dates to January 31, 2022, for certain recordkeeping and proxy voting requirements.

Principal Remains as Defendant After CHS Settlement

The proposed agreement stipulates that the class counsel does not intend to seek recovery of any attorneys’ fees or litigation costs from Community Health Systems (CHS) in connection with the settlement.

The plaintiffs and the plan sponsor involved in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit known as Kirk v. Retirement Committee of CHS/Community Health Systems Inc have filed a settlement motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.

In the underlying lawsuit, the Community Health Systems (CHS) defendants are accused of breaching their fiduciary duties by maintaining excessively expensive and poorly performing index funds in the plan. Though these funds are managed by Principal, the fiduciary breach allegation only pertains to the employer, CHS. However, there are also allegations that the default target-date fund (TDF) suite provided by Principal performed poorly for an excessive period of time, without being adequately reviewed or removed from the plan. According to the complaint, because these TDFs are organized as separate accounts for the plan, Principal owes fiduciary duties to the plan and its participants with respect to the management of those accounts.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

For its part, Principal has strongly denied these allegations and continues to fight the lawsuit.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the CHS defendants will pay a gross settlement amount of $580,000 into a common fund for the benefit of settlement class members, defined as those who invested in the standalone Principal index funds in the plan.

“This is a fair and reasonable recovery that represents approximately 50% of the damages (and 94% of the excess fees) that plaintiffs calculate to be associated with those standalone funds that were the focus of plaintiffs’ claim against the CHS defendants,” the settlement agreement states. “Further, the CHS defendants have agreed to provide certain further discovery related to the remaining claim against the Principal defendants relating to the management of the target-date separate accounts in the plan, which was asserted primarily against the Principal defendants.”

The proposed settlement agreement stipulates that the class counsel does not intend to seek recovery of any attorneys’ fees or litigation costs in connection with the settlement. Presumably, they will seek such compensation from the ongoing litigation involving Principal.

«