வருடாந்திரம் பரிவர்த்தனைகள் மாதிரி ஒழுங்குமுறை News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

The ruling states that “while the consumer protection goals underlying promulgation of the amendment are laudable, as written, the amendment fails to provide sufficient concrete, practical guidance for producers to know whether their conduct, on a day-to-day basis, comports with the amendment’s corresponding requirements for making recommendations and compiling and evaluating the relevant suitability information of the consumer.” Further, the ruling states, “although the amendment provides certain examples of what a recommendation does not include (i.e., ‘general factual information to consumers, such as advertisements, marketing materials, general education information’ and ‘use of … interactive tool[s]‘… the remaining definitional language is so broad that it is difficult to discern what statements producers could potentially make that would not be reasonably interpreted by the consumer to constitute advice regarding a potential sales transaction and therefor

New yorkUnited statesJason berkowitzWesley bissettNy appellate courtNational association of insuranceYork courtYork department of financial service amended regulationRetirement instituteWhat you needAppellate divisionNew york state supreme courtNew york departmentFinancial service amended regulationBest interestsLife insurance