American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company v. SEC
613 F.3d 166 (2010)
Rule of Law:
Under the Allied-Signal standard, a court should vacate a defective agency regulation rather than merely remanding it if the agency's error is serious and vacatur would not cause significant disruption to the regulatory program.
Facts:
- The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) promulgated Rule 151A to regulate certain annuity products.
- Federal law required the SEC to consider the rule's effect on efficiency, competition, and capital formation (Section 2(b) analysis) before adoption.
- The SEC conducted an analysis of these factors, but it failed to properly consider the effect of the rule upon existing state laws.
- At the time of the litigation, Rule 151A had been finalized but had not yet gone into effect.
- State laws governing these insurance products remained in place and operational during the dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners (Insurance Companies) filed a petition for review of SEC Rule 151A in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals issued an initial opinion (572 F.3d 923) holding that the SEC's economic analysis was defective but did not explicitly vacate the rule.
- Petitioner Old Mutual Financial Life Insurance Company filed a petition for rehearing regarding the remedy.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the SEC's failure to properly analyze the economic impacts of Rule 151A warrant vacating the rule entirely, given that the rule has not yet gone into effect?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the rule must be vacated because the analytical deficiency was serious and revocation causes no disruption to an inoperative rule. Applying the Allied-Signal test, the court first determined the deficiency was serious because the SEC's Section 2(b) analysis was lacking regarding the rule's interaction with state laws. Although the SEC argued it would likely reissue the rule, the court noted the Commission could not know this outcome until the analysis was actually completed. Second, the court found that vacatur would not be disruptive. Since Rule 151A had not yet gone into effect, there was no 'egg that had been scrambled' or fees to return. State regulations remained in place to govern the industry in the interim. Consequently, the court ordered the rule vacated.
Analysis:
This Per Curiam order is significant because it clarifies the application of the 'Allied-Signal' test regarding the remedy of vacatur versus remand without vacatur. It emphasizes that when an agency fails to conduct a prerequisite economic analysis, the court will not accept a 'harmless error' approach or assume the agency will reach the same result upon re-evaluation. Furthermore, the decision highlights that the 'disruptive consequences' prong of the vacatur test weighs heavily in favor of vacatur when a rule has not yet been implemented, as there is no status quo to restore. This protects regulated entities from complying with a potentially invalid rule while the agency attempts to fix its administrative errors.
