While the Labor Department has promised a temporary enforcementreprieve of the fiduciary rule, that guarantee does not do enough toaddress potential confusion in the marketplace, say some industrystakeholders.

Related: Labor puts fiduciary rule's private rightof action under microscope

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Securities Industry FinancialMarkets Association, and a consortium of other industry tradegroups that are appealing a decision to uphold the fiduciary rule in the 5^thCircuit Court of Appeals, have asked a Texas federal court to delaythe April 10 applicability date until the appellate court rules onthe case.

Last week, the Labor Department published a temporaryenforcement policy for the rule. In doing so, regulators wereaddressing the potential for the proposed 60-day delay of the ruleto be issued after the April 10 scheduled implementation date.

While the Department said it “believes it will issue a decision”to delay the rule before the April 10 implementation date, thepotential for confusion if it fails to issue a delay in timewarrants the temporary enforcement relief, explained regulators ina field bulletin.

In its request to delay the rule’s applicability date until the5^th Circuit rules on the decision to uphold the rule,the Chamber claims Labor’s proposed 60-day delay is not enough toaddress the disruption the rule is expected to cause industry.

“The Department may be unable to finalize its rulemaking (todelay the rule) before the beginning of April,” wrote attorneys forthe plaintiffs in the injunction request.

“In the meantime, industry participants will have no choice butto continue to sink extensive resources into developing theircompliance capabilities—and continue to incur irreversiblefinancial costs and operational disruptions. Moreover, a 60-dayextension is unlikely to be long enough for this litigation to runits course.”

Judge Barbara Lynn, the chief judge for the Northern District ofTexas, recently issued a sweeping ruling upholding the fiduciaryrule.

Nonetheless, the plaintiffs insist they have a “compelling caseon the merits,” which could sway the 5^th Circuit.

“If the Court of Appeals accepts one or more of thosechallenges, the result would be to strike down or substantiallylimit the Rule’s scope,” the request for injunction says.

If the appellate court were to do so after the rule isimplemented, the potential disruption to industry and confusionamong retirement investors would be significant, argue theplaintiffs.

Related: How will the fiduciary rule affect yourbusiness?

“That relief will be incomplete if it comes after industryparticipants have incurred substantial and irreparable financialcosts, operational burdens, employment changes, and disruptivetransformations of their relationships with many retirementsavers,” according to court documents.

Previous attempts to stay the rule’s implementation date pendingappeal have fallen on deaf ears.

The National Association of Fixed Annuities requested a delay ofthe rule until its appeal was decided in the D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals. That request was denied.

But the Chamber and SIFMA argue their request is being madeunder new circumstances.

The fact that Labor is undertaking a new economic and legalanalysis of the rule that could result in it being withdrawn orrewritten means a delay is in the public’s best interest.

“With the Department itself seeking to extend the Rule’sapplicability date while it considers whether to rescind or revisethe Rule, the public interest heavily favors an injunction so thatthe serious questions about the Rule’s validity can be resolvedwithout further wasteful, unwarranted, and unrecoverable costsbeing incurred first,” the plaintiffs said.

Delaying the rule for a few more months while an appeal isconsidered would not create “hardship” for the public, claim theplaintiffs, as it would simply extend a regulatory framework theLabor Department has been fine with “for decades.”

Erin Sweeney, an attorney with Washington D.C.-based Miller& Chevalier, thinks the Chamber presents a much stronger casefor a delay pending appeal compared to NAFA’s earlier request,which came before President Trump ordered a new review of therule.

“The Chamber's conclusion that an injunction would be ‘efficientfor all involved’ is persuasive because it will save the Departmentfrom an accelerated review process that is not likely to becompleted by April 10,” said Sweeney in an email.

“The possibility of uncertainty in the industry – and thespecter of two major changes in the regulatoryenvironment--militates in favor of an injunction,” she added.

Related: Even if fiduciary rule is delayed, firmsstill preparing to act as fiduciaries

The American Council of Life Insurers filed a separate motionfor an injunction seeking to delay the implementation date untilthe 5^th Circuit rules. Both motions request a decisionfrom Judge Lynn on the delay by March 20.

Attorneys for the Labor and Justice Departments have said theywill oppose the motion to delay the rule, according to courtdocuments.

The 15-day comment period for the Labor Department’s proposed60-day delay of the rule closes March 17. Hundreds of comments fromstakeholders and the public have already been received. Severallarger stakeholders have suggested the Labor Department propose alonger delay to account for it’s the new analysis of the ruleordered by the Trump administration.