What the new Executive Order on proxy voting may mean for fiduciaries

The White House announced on April 10 that the President had signed an Executive Order on “Promoting Energy Infrastructure and Economic Growth.” Section 5 of the Executive Order imposes two requirements on the Department of Labor (DOL), each of which must be completed within 6 months:

“[C]omplete a review of available data filed with the Department of Labor by retirement plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in order to identify whether there are discernible trends with respect to such plans’ investments in the energy sector,” and “provide an update to the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on any discernable trends in energy investments by such plans;” and,
“complete a review of existing Department of Labor guidance on the fiduciary responsibilities for proxy voting to determine whether any such guidance should be rescinded, replaced, or modified to ensure consistency with current law and policies that promote long-term growth and maximize return on ERISA plan assets.”

Less than one year ago, the DOL released Field Assistance Bulletin 2018-1, in which the DOL clarified its views on how shareholder engagement could be conducted in a manner consistent with ERISA’s fiduciary duties. Proxy voting and other forms of engagement are fiduciary functions under ERISA. The application of ERISA’s fiduciary duties in this context is ultimately a function of materiality and cost, each positively related to the other, so that as the perceived materiality of an issue on investment performance that is the subject of engagement increases, a fiduciary has more rope to incur costs on its meetings with the board, etc. The converse is also true. A possible result of a narrower interpretation by the DOL and/or the courts of what (ESG) risks are material to a company’s performance: less engagement on those risks broadly. A more probable result, however, is that fiduciaries already evaluating ESG risks will continue parsing whatever ad hoc disclosures are volunteered by the companies, and may point to statements made by prominent individuals and institutions on the materiality of these risks.

Blog Authors

Sara P. Crovitz

Sara Crovitz, most recently Deputy Chief Counsel and Associate Director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management, provides counsel on all aspects of investment company and investment adviser regulation. She worked at the SEC for 21 years, including 17 years in the Division of Investment Management focusing on issues under the Investment Company and Investment Advisers Acts of 1940. While in the Division, Sara supervised the provision of significant legal guidance to the investment management industry through no-action and interpretive letters, exemptive applications, IM guidance updates and other written and oral means.

William T. Mandia

William Mandia represents financial institutions and insurers in complex commercial and class action litigation. He regularly defends and advises life insurers, intermediaries, banks, broker-dealers, investment advisers, and other financial services providers in connection with sales practices claims arising from a wide range of financial and life insurance products, including, but not limited to, claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and violations of state consumer protection laws.

Peter M. Hong

Peter Hong uses his many years of service at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to guide clients through the various regulatory requirements involved in the offer of financial services and products. His practice includes the registration and regulation of investment advisers, broker-dealers, commodity trading advisers, commodity pool operators, and introducing brokers under federal and state laws, as well as the formation and ongoing compliance obligations of registered and private investment companies.