Podcasts about dodd frank act

Jon Hartley and Randal Quarles discuss Randy's career as a lawyer and in policy (including his time as Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Regulation) and topics such as the global financial crisis, Glass-Steagall, banking regulation, lender of last resort, Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Act, capital requirements, the potential relaxation of Treasuries in the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR), deposit insurance after the Silicon Valley Bank regional banking crisis, and stablecoin regulation. Recorded on May 29, 2025. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Randal Quarles is the Chairman and co-founder of The Cynosure Group.  Before founding Cynosure, Mr. Quarles was a long-time partner of the Carlyle Group, where he began the firm's program of investments in the financial services industry during the 2008 financial crisis. From October 2017 through October 2021, Mr. Quarles was Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, serving as the system's first Vice Chairman for Supervision, charged specifically with ensuring stability of the financial sector.  He also served as the Chairman of the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) from December 2018 until December 2021; a global body established after the Great Financial Crisis to coordinate international efforts to enhance financial stability. In both positions, he played a key role in crafting the US and international response to the economic and financial dislocations of COVID-19, successfully preventing widespread global disruption of the financial system.  As FSB Chairman, he was a regular delegate to the finance ministers' meetings of the G-7 and G20 Groups of nations and to the Summit meetings of the G20.  As Fed Vice Chair, he was a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, the body that sets monetary policy for the United States. Earlier in his career, Mr. Quarles was Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, where he led the Department's activities in financial sector and capital markets policy, including coordination of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. Before serving as Under Secretary, Mr. Quarles was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, where he had a key role in responding to several international crises.  Mr. Quarles was also the U.S. Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund, a member of the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, and a board representative for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. In earlier public service, he was an integral member of the Treasury team in the George H. W. Bush Administration that developed the governmental response to the savings and loan crisis. Jon Hartley is currently a Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an economics PhD Candidate at Stanford University, a Research Fellow at the UT-Austin Civitas Institute, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and an Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center. Jon is also the host of the Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century Podcast, an official podcast of the Hoover Institution, a member of the Canadian Group of Economists, and the chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as a Fixed Income Portfolio Construction and Risk Management Associate and as a Quantitative Investment Strategies Client Portfolio Management Senior Analyst and in various policy/governmental roles at the World Bank, IMF, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada.  Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes, and The Huffington Post and has contributed to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, Globe and Mail, National Post, and Toronto Star, among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30 Law & Policy list, the 2017 Wharton 40 Under 40 list, and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper.  ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics.

Trump wants to rollback banking regulations - What could go wrong? If Trump were to roll back the banking rules put in place after the 2008 financial crisis (like those in the Dodd-Frank Act), several risks could arise. More fascism...Trump moves to get political control of doctors and scientists. ICE thugs grabbed a teen driving to volleyball practice and the town is outraged. The GOP's never-ending effort to repeal Obamacare continues.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Upholds CFPB Funding StructureOn May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding structure. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the agency's funding—drawn from the Federal Reserve and not subject to annual congressional appropriations—does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution permits flexibility in funding mechanisms so long as they are authorized by law and subject to congressional oversight in some form. The ruling affirmed the CFPB's continued ability to regulate financial institutions and enforce consumer protection laws independent of Congress's annual budget process.The decision marked a significant moment in the Court's treatment of agency independence, particularly at a time of renewed scrutiny of the administrative state. It was widely seen as a victory for supporters of the CFPB, which had faced ongoing legal and political challenges since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. However, the case also highlighted the growing skepticism among certain justices—and lawmakers—about the breadth of agency power and accountability.Just one year later, the CFPB's future is again uncertain. With a new administration openly hostile to the agency and legislative efforts underway to curtail its authority or restructure its funding, the May 2024 decision is already being treated as legal history. Though the Court upheld the agency's funding, the political battle over the CFPB continues, casting doubt on how long the victory will stand.Intel appeared before the EU General Court to contest a €376 million ($421.4 million) antitrust fine reimposed by the European Commission. The fine stems from the Commission's 2009 decision, which originally imposed a record €1.06 billion penalty for Intel's actions that allegedly excluded rival AMD from the market. Though the General Court overturned the majority of that decision in 2022, it upheld a portion related to so-called “naked restrictions”—payments Intel made to HP, Acer, and Lenovo to delay or halt rival products between 2002 and 2006.Intel's lawyer argued that the violations were narrow and tactical, not part of a broader strategy to shut out competitors from the x86 chip market. He claimed the Commission failed to weigh the limited impact of those actions and imposed a disproportionate and unfair fine. The Commission countered that the fine followed established guidelines and represented only a small fraction of Intel's turnover, asserting that the penalty was appropriate for the seriousness of the conduct.Both sides asked the court to settle the matter by determining the appropriate fine amount. A decision is expected in the coming months.Intel spars with EU regulators over $421.4 million antitrust fine | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in a case that could redefine the U.S. president's authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies. The Trump administration is appealing two lower court decisions that reinstated Democratic officials Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after President Trump removed them without cause earlier this year. Both boards, which handle labor disputes and federal employee appeals, were left effectively inoperable due to vacancies, with thousands of pending cases.The administration argues that statutory protections limiting removals to “cause” violate the president's constitutional authority to control the executive branch. Trump's legal team claims that these agencies exercise substantial executive power and therefore should not be shielded from presidential oversight. The case may hinge on Humphrey's Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld removal protections for members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. Conservative judges—including two Trump appointees on the panel—have recently questioned the decision's reach.If the D.C. Circuit sides with Trump, it could pave the way for a broader dismantling of long-standing removal protections across federal agencies. Legal scholars warn that such a move could give the president far-reaching power to reshape regulatory policy by purging officials who don't align with the administration's agenda. The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a narrowing or overruling of Humphrey's Executor.US court to weigh Trump's powers to fire Democrats from federal agencies | ReutersData obtained through a public records request reveals that recent buyouts at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have significantly reduced staffing in key divisions. The legal, investment management, and trading and markets offices experienced workforce cuts ranging from 15% to 19% over just a few weeks. Regional offices in Chicago and Denver also saw nearly 20% reductions. Overall, the SEC's full-time staff has shrunk by 12% since January, with agency chair Paul Atkins recently noting a 15% decrease since October.These losses come amid ongoing hiring freezes and budget restrictions. While Atkins suggested that some roles may be refilled, he did not dismiss the possibility of more cuts. In parallel, more than 20 SEC employees have been reassigned to focus on contract reviews, part of a broader cost-cutting initiative coordinated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. DGE has expanded its presence at SEC headquarters and is reviewing agency operations, particularly IT services, to identify further savings.The SEC declined to comment on the staffing reductions, though a spokesperson confirmed it is working with DGE to improve efficiency. The full implications of these staffing losses for the agency's regulatory functions remain unclear.SEC buyouts hit legal, investment offices hardest, data shows | ReutersMeta Platforms asked a federal judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust lawsuit, arguing the agency failed to prove that the company holds an illegal monopoly in social media. The case, which centers on Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, claims these deals were aimed at neutralizing potential rivals and maintaining dominance in the market for apps used to share personal updates. The FTC wants to unwind those acquisitions, made more than a decade ago.Meta contends the FTC's case falls short of demonstrating that WhatsApp and Instagram posed meaningful competitive threats at the time of acquisition. The company pointed to internal evidence suggesting WhatsApp had no ambitions to become a social media platform and that Instagram actually thrived post-acquisition. Meta also argued the FTC has not clearly defined the relevant market, especially given competition from platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and X (formerly Twitter), which Meta says all compete for user attention.The company maintains that its products face constant pressure to evolve in response to competitors. If the judge denies Meta's request to end the case now, the trial will continue through June with closing arguments and final briefs expected afterward. A ruling that Meta holds an illegal monopoly would trigger a second trial focused on potential remedies.Meta asks judge to rule that FTC failed to prove its monopoly case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is the second movement of Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich”, which translates roughly to “Strongly moving, but not too fast. Quite leisurely.” Composed in the late 1880s and premiered in 1889, Mahler's First Symphony marked his audacious entry into the world of symphonic writing. At once expansive and deeply personal, the work fuses Romantic tradition with the beginnings of Mahler's own, modern voice.The second movement—our focus this week—is a rustic Ländler, an Austrian folk dance form, reimagined with orchestral power and emotional complexity. Mahler, who was born in 1860 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew up surrounded by folk tunes and military marches, and these influences saturate this section of the symphony. It opens with swagger and energy, driven by bold rhythms and a sense of physicality, before softening into a slower trio section that offers brief lyrical repose.Though the movement has a lively surface, its contrasting moods reflect Mahler's signature ability to intertwine the playful and the profound. His orchestration here is vivid but never ornamental—every detail serves a dramatic or emotional purpose. Mahler's symphonies often contemplate mortality, memory, and transcendence, but this movement reminds us that he could also be joyful, ironic, and grounded in the sounds of real life.By the time of his death in 1911, Mahler had transformed the symphony into a vessel for existential expression, bridging the 19th and 20th centuries. This movement from his First hints at all that was to come. As our week closes, we leave you with this music—bold, earthy, and unmistakably Mahler.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today's podcast features Stephen Calkins, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and former General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”). President Trump recently fired, without good cause, the two Democratic members of the FTC, leaving only two Republican members as commissioners. He did this even though the FTC Act provides that a commissioner may be fired by the President only for good cause and that the commission is to be governed by a bi-partisan 5-member commission This is the third time in the past few weeks that Trump has fired without good cause democratic members of other federal agencies; the other two being the National Labor Relations Board (The “NLRB”) and the Merit Selection Protection Board (The “MSPB”). The statutes governing those two agencies, like the FTC Act, allow the President to fire a member of the governing board for good cause only. The fired members of all three agencies initiated lawsuits in federal district court for the District of Columbia, seeking mandatory preliminary injunctions requiring those agencies to reinstate them with back pay. We discuss the status of the two lawsuits and how the outcome will turn on whether the Supreme Court will apply or overrule a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor, which held that the provision in the Constitution allowing the President to fire an FTC commissioner for good cause only did not run afoul of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution. Conversely, the Supreme Court will need to determine whether the Supreme Court opinion in Seila Law, LLC V. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should apply to these two new cases. In Seila Law, the Supreme Court held on Constitutional grounds, that the President could fire without good cause the sole director of the CFPB even though the Dodd-Frank Act allowed the President to fire the sole director of the CFPB for good cause only. Until this gets resolved, the FTC will be governed only by two Republican commissioners who will constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting official business. Professor Calkins explains how a Supreme Court ruling in these two new cases upholding Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the agencies could enable the President to fire without good cause members of other multiple-member agencies, like the Federal Reserve Board. We then discuss the status of the following four final controversial FTC rule, some of which were challenged in court: the CARS Rule, the Click-to-Cancel Rule, the Junk Fee Rule, and the Non-Compete Rule. We also discuss the impact of President Trump's Executive Order requiring that all federal agencies, including so-called “independent” agencies, must obtain approval from the White House before taking any significant actions, like proposing or finalizing rules. Then, we discuss the status of enforcement investigations and litigation and whether any of them have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the FTC under Trump 2.0, whether any new enforcement lawsuits been filed, and what they involve. We discuss our expectation that the FTC will be a lot less active in the consumer protection enforcement area during Trump 2.0. We then discuss the impact on staffing because of DOGE-imposed reductions-in-force. Finally, we touch upon the status of pending antitrust enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel, hosts the discussion.

Our special podcast show today deals primarily with a 112-page opinion and 3-page order issued on March 28 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a lawsuit brought, among others, by two labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The complaint alleged that Acting Director Vought and others were in the process of dismantling the CFPB through various actions taken since Rohit Chopra was fired and replaced by Acting Director Scott Bessent and then Acting Director Russell Vought. This process included, among other things, the termination of probationary and term employees and possibly another 1,300 or so employees through a reduction-in-force , the issuance of a stop work order, the closure of the CFPB's main office in DC and branch offices throughout the country, the termination of most third-party contracts, the decision not to request any additional funding from the Federal Reserve Board for the balance of the fiscal year and the voluntary dismissal of several enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and Joseph Schuster, a Partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group, discuss each part of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Jackson which, among other things, required the CFPB to re-hire all probationary and term employees who had been terminated, prohibited the CFPB from terminating any CFPB employee except for just cause (which apparently does not include lack of work because of the change in focus and direction of the CFPB), required the CFPB not to enforce a previous “stop work” order or reduction-in-force.  We observed that Judge Jackson's order has required the CFPB to maintain for now a work force that is not needed for the “new” CFPB. We also discuss that the preliminary injunction order does not require the CFPB to maintain any of the regulations promulgated or proposed by Rohit Chopra or to continue to prosecute any of the enforcement lawsuits brought by Director Chopra. DOJ filed a notice of appeal on March 29 and on March 31 filed a motion in the DC Court of Appeals to stay Judge Jackson's order. (After the recording of this podcast, the DOJ filed in the Court of Appeals a motion seeking a stay of Judge Jackson's order. Pending a hearing on April 9th, the Court issued an administrative stay of Judge Jackson's order. The 3-Judge panel is composed of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee.) A copy of the blog co-authored by Alan and Joseph is linked here. We also discuss another lawsuit initiated by the City of Baltimore and one other plaintiff against Acting Director Vought in Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to enjoin him from returning to the Federal Reserve Board or the Treasury funds held by the CFPB. The Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that it was not ripe for adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act because the CFPB never actually returned any funds. Finally, Alan expresses surprise that the Acting Director has not relied on the argument that all funds received by the CFPB after September, 2022 were unlawfully obtained because the Dodd-Frank Act stipulates that the CFPB can be funded only out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and the fact that there have only been huge combined losses of the Federal Reserve Banks since Sept 2022 which continue through today and are likely to continue through the foreseeable future.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Jesse Silverman and James Kim to discuss recent developments in New York's legislative efforts to strengthen its consumer financial protection laws. They delve into the recently introduced Fair Business Practices Act, which borrows aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act and seeks to expand the New York Attorney General's powers to mirror those of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and its potential impact on businesses and consumers. The discussion highlights the broader trend of states stepping up their consumer protection efforts in response to perceived federal regulatory relaxation. The episode also explores the increasing cooperation and personnel exchange between the CFPB and state regulators, emphasizing the growing influence of state-level enforcement in the consumer financial services landscape. Tune in to understand the implications of these legislative changes and how they might shape the future of consumer financial protection.

Professor Kimberly D. Krawiec from the University of Virginia School of Law explores "repugnant transactions and taboo trades" — markets that are morally contested and sometimes even prohibited, such as sex work, commercial surrogacy, and the sale of organs, eggs, and sperm. She asks how we, as a society, decide what is up for sale and what is off-limits. The controversies here are not about the dangers of markets themselves, but rather the dangers of buying/selling certain goods or services. Advocates of market restrictions seek to define the ethical boundaries of the marketplace – to identify the specific goods and services that are inappropriate for market trading, and to explain why these restrictions should exist even for apparently willing buyers and sellers.Although all cultures have deemed some transactions too sacred for the marketplace, the targets of these restrictions have varied widely, even within a given time period. For example, prostitution is currently legal in much of the world but illegal in most of the United States. Meanwhile, commercial surrogacy and paid egg donation are legal in much of the United States but illegal in many other parts of the world.This talk delves into these and other restricted trades. It identifies how they are regulated by legal regimes as well as social norms, evaluates the consequences of different approaches, and explores potential paths forward.About the Speaker: Professor Kimberly D. Krawiec holds the Charles O. Gregory Professorship of Law at the University of Virginia. Her current research analyses “taboo trades” — exchanges that are contested by society and, in some cases, forbidden altogether. She has written on commercial surrogacy, egg and sperm markets, and sex work. At the moment, much of her work is on incentives for organ donation. Another area of her research centres on the regulation of financial markets and business organizations. Prof. Krawiec has extensively examined the administrative process surrounding the Volcker Rule, a complex and highly contested provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. She has also researched corporate boards of directors. Through an ethnographic method, this work analyses directors' views on the workings of the corporate boardroom and board relations with management, with a special emphasis on directors' views on race and gender diversity in the boardroom.With a wealth of experience in commodity and derivatives law, she has also been a commentator for the Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (CEELI) of the American Bar Association and has taught at top institutions including Duke, North Carolina, Harvard, and Northwestern, where she won the Robert Childres Award for Teaching Excellence.The lecture begins at 03:44Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest.For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Professor Kimberly D. Krawiec from the University of Virginia School of Law explores "repugnant transactions and taboo trades" — markets that are morally contested and sometimes even prohibited, such as sex work, commercial surrogacy, and the sale of organs, eggs, and sperm. She asks how we, as a society, decide what is up for sale and what is off-limits. The controversies here are not about the dangers of markets themselves, but rather the dangers of buying/selling certain goods or services. Advocates of market restrictions seek to define the ethical boundaries of the marketplace – to identify the specific goods and services that are inappropriate for market trading, and to explain why these restrictions should exist even for apparently willing buyers and sellers.Although all cultures have deemed some transactions too sacred for the marketplace, the targets of these restrictions have varied widely, even within a given time period. For example, prostitution is currently legal in much of the world but illegal in most of the United States. Meanwhile, commercial surrogacy and paid egg donation are legal in much of the United States but illegal in many other parts of the world.This talk delves into these and other restricted trades. It identifies how they are regulated by legal regimes as well as social norms, evaluates the consequences of different approaches, and explores potential paths forward.About the Speaker: Professor Kimberly D. Krawiec holds the Charles O. Gregory Professorship of Law at the University of Virginia. Her current research analyses “taboo trades” — exchanges that are contested by society and, in some cases, forbidden altogether. She has written on commercial surrogacy, egg and sperm markets, and sex work. At the moment, much of her work is on incentives for organ donation. Another area of her research centres on the regulation of financial markets and business organizations. Prof. Krawiec has extensively examined the administrative process surrounding the Volcker Rule, a complex and highly contested provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. She has also researched corporate boards of directors. Through an ethnographic method, this work analyses directors' views on the workings of the corporate boardroom and board relations with management, with a special emphasis on directors' views on race and gender diversity in the boardroom.With a wealth of experience in commodity and derivatives law, she has also been a commentator for the Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (CEELI) of the American Bar Association and has taught at top institutions including Duke, North Carolina, Harvard, and Northwestern, where she won the Robert Childres Award for Teaching Excellence.The lecture begins at 03:44Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest.For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Chris critiques the Dodd-Frank Act and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, arguing that both have contributed to the financial crises and the consolidation of power within Wall Street. He discusses the historical context of these regulations, the role of government in forcing banks to make risky loans, and the implications of these policies on the economy. www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

Emmanuel Daniel discusses the great financial transition and how America is leading the way in globalizing cryptocurrency by digitizing the dollar and how debt will play a key role. He comments on everything from memecoins, gold, and asset tokenization to the AI Arms Race (e.g. DeepSeek, OpenAI), DOGE, the BIS, and more! Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack Geopolitics & Empire · Emmanuel Daniel: Moving Toward the Digital Financialization of Everything #523 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.com Donate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donations Consult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopolitics easyDNS (use code GEOPOLITICS for 15% off!) https://easydns.com Escape The Technocracy course (15% discount using link) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopolitics PassVult https://passvult.com Sociatates Civis (CitizenHR, CitizenIT, CitizenPL) https://societates-civis.com Wise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites Emmanuel Daniel https://www.emmanueldaniel.com The Great Transition: The Personalization of Finance is Here https://www.emmanueldaniel.com/the-great-transition About Emmanuel Daniel Emmanuel Daniel is an author, advisor and a global thought leader on geopolitics, the future of finance and their impact on business and society. He was listed as a top 10 global influencer in the “Fintech Power50” list for 2021 and 2022. He is also a model train enthusiast. Emmanuel founded the research, publication and consulting house, TAB Global, in 1996. Through its platforms such as The Asian Banker, Wealth and Society, The Banking Academy and TABInsights, Emmanuel has extensive contacts with leaders in corporations and governments around the world. He has served, or is serving, in advisory or consulting roles for various public or private sector institutions and is a well regarded mentor and confidante in leadership circles. He won the Citibank Excellence in Business Journalism for Asia in 1999 for his work on the internet in banking. “The Asian Banker Summit” won the best finance conference from the Asian Conference and Summit Awards in 2012. He is regularly interviewed on BBC, CNBC and Bloomberg. In his first book, “The Great Transition – the personalization of finance is here” published in September 2022, Emmanuel outlines how the banking industry will evolve from being focused on platform technologies to a level of personalization never seen before. He describes the roles of cryptocurrencies, blockchain, gaming and other technologies in this transition. The book was written to help disruptor technologies in finance chart their course. The book features forewords written by former congressman Barney Frank, the co-author of the Dodd-Frank Act legislations that regulates the financial industry in the US today and Richard Sandor, an innovator widely regarded as the “father of financial futures”. His writings are also based on his extensive travel, now across 130 countries and counting. He posts regularly on his blog and is working towards his second book which is tentatively entitled “The Winning Civilization” and due for publication in 2024. As an entrepreneur, he was previously a member of the Entrepreneurs Organization (EO), a prestigious grouping of young business owners worldwide. Emmanuel was trained as a lawyer, has degrees from the National University of Singapore and the University of London, and attended a course on economics at Columbia University in New York. He divides his time between Singapore, Beijing and New York when not traveling extensively. *Podcast intro music is from the song "The Queens Jig" by "Musicke & Mirth" from their album "Music for Two Lyra Viols": http://musicke-mirth.

Alex Rosado enters the Bullpen to discuss efforts to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act. Host: Dr. Rashad Richey (@rashad_richey) Bullpen guest: Alex Rosado *** SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE  ☞  https://www.youtube.com/IndisputableTYT FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/IndisputableTYT TWITTER  ☞       https://www.twitter.com/IndisputableTYT INSTAGRAM ☞  https://www.instagram.com/IndisputableTYT Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast episode is a repurposing of Alan Kaplinsky's “fireside chat” with Kathy Kraninger, the Director of the CFPB during the second half of President Trump's presidency from December 2018 until January 2021. (This was originally the first half of a webinar we did on January 6, 2025 which was entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB - Supervision and Enforcement.” The January 6 webinar is Part 2 of a 3-part series. Next Thursday, we will release the second half of that webinar which will feature Ballard Spahr partners, John Culhane and Mike Kilgariff, who will take a deep dive into the expected changes in CFPB supervision and enforcement during President Trump's second term in office.) During her “fireside chat” with Alan, Kathy discussed the following things: (a) How she was nominated by Trump to be the Director and succeeded Mick Mulvaney, the acting Director appointed by Trump to succeed Richard Cordray as Acting Director; (b) Organizational and other changes made by Mulvaney and/or Kraninger, including a hiring freeze, appointments of new heads of departments, etc; (c) The practical impact on CFPB operations of the Supreme Court's opinion in the Seila Law case in which the Court held that the President had the right to remove the CFPB director without cause; (d) Her priorities as Director, including her regulatory, supervisory and enforcement agendas; (e) Her policy statements on “abusiveness”, supervisory expectations and COVID-19; (g) Her thoughts on what she anticipates will change at the CFPB once a new acting director chosen by Trump succeeds Rohit Chopra; and (h) Her thoughts on whether Congress should re-structure the CFPB's governance and funding. The “fireside chat” provides stakeholders in the CFPB insight into what may happen at the CFPB during Trump 2.0. There will, however, be some important differences between the circumstances that existed during the transition from Cordray to Mulvaney Kraninger during Traump 1.0 and the transition from Chopra to a new acting Director during Trump 2.0.. At the time when Mick Mulvaney became Acting Director, there were no pending lawsuits challenging CFPB final regs and other actions. During Mulvaney's term in office, a trade association of payday lenders sued the CFPB challenging the CFPB's payday lending rule and, in particular, its “ability to pay” requirement. The acting director appointed by Trump will inherit multiple pending lawsuits against the CFPB challenging many of the regs issued by the CFPB under Rohit Chopra's last two years as Director. The Acting Director will need to develop legislative (Congressional Review Act), judicial and regulatory strategies for dealing with the slough of regs, proposed regs and other written guidance issued by Chopra. The Acting Director will also need to quickly decide what position the CFPB will take with respect to the defense raised in at least 13 enforcement lawsuits claiming that the CFPB has been disabled from conducting business since September 2022 when there was no longer any “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” - a prerequisite to the Federal Reserve Board funding the CFPB under the Dodd-Frank Act. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Today's podcast episode is a repurposing of part one of our December 16 highly-attended and praised webinar consisting of Alan Kaplinsky's exclusive interview of David Silberman, who held several senior positions at the CFPB for almost 10 years under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Part two of our December 16 webinar, featuring Ballard Spahr partners John Culhane and Joseph Schuster, is to be released on January 9. They focus their attention on the impact of the election on the CFPB's regulations (final and proposed). Our December 16 webinar is the first part of our three-part intensive look at this transitional period for the CFPB. The goal of our three-part series is to help us predict what is in store for the CFPB during the next four years. As a former senior leader at the CFPB during the only other transition of the CFPB from a Democratic to a Republican administration led by former President Trump, Mr. Silberman has special insight about what is likely to happen to the CFPB during Trump 2.0. While nobody yet knows who Trump will nominate as the next CFPB director, Mr. Silberman makes the point that, of potentially greater importance, at least initially, is who Trump selects as the acting director. If what happened in Trump 1.0 is any indication, the acting director may end up serving for a lengthy period of time just like Mick Mulvaney served as acting director for a lengthy period of time before Kathy Kraninger was nominated by Trump, confirmed by the Senate and sworn-in as director. Under the Vacancy Reform Act, the acting director must be either a current senior officer of the CFPB or someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate for a different position. Among other things, Mr. Silberman addressed the following topics during his interview: 1.               What were some of the first steps that Mr. Mulvaney took when he became acting director and will they be replicated by a new acting director? 2.               How will a new acting director deal with the many lawsuits brought by trade groups challenging CFPB final rules issued by Director Chopra?  Will there be a distinction made between final rules in which district courts have ruled on motions for preliminary injunction and those where courts have not so ruled. Will there be distinctions made between final rules where courts have granted or denied injunctive relief?  Finally, will there be distinctions made between final rules mandated by Dodd-Frank and so-called discretionary rules? 3.               Which final rules are still subject to being overridden by the Congressional Review Act and what are the odds of that happening with respect to any of such rules? 4.               How will the new acting director deal with proposed rules as of January 20? 5.               How will the new acting director deal with CFPB enforcement investigations and lawsuits initiated by Chopra, including those which arguably “push the envelope” with respect to the CFPB's jurisdiction? 6.               Will the new acting director agree with many industry pundits that the CFPB has been unlawfully funded by the Federal Reserve Board since September, 2022 in light of the language in the Dodd-Frank Act which permits funding of the CFPB only out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and the fact that there have been no such combined earnings since September 2022 and the likelihood that no such combined earnings are anticipated in the near future.  Does this impact actions taken by the CFPB since September 2022? 7.               What role, if any, will the White House play in directing or influencing CFPB policy?  What impact, if any, might the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have on the CFPB? 8.               Do you expect the new acting director to initiate any rulemakings other than those required by Dodd-Frank? 9.               Will the new acting director be more supportive of innovation than Chopra and, if so, how will that be reflected? Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Discover the future of dentistry as Dr. Sepand H, the visionary CEO and founder of Total Health Dental Care, redefines what it means to run a Dental Service Organization (DSO). From aspiring software engineer to groundbreaking dentist, Dr. H shares his journey and unveils a tech-enabled model that promises to enhance patient care. His revolutionary approach aims to seamlessly connect dentists and specialists, creating an exceptional patient experience that boosts both retention and profitability. Join us as Dr. H sets the stage for a new era in dentistry, challenging the limits of traditional practices.Technology's transformative power takes center stage, illuminating a path forward for DSOs grappling with modern challenges like wage inflation and capped fees. Since 2021, embracing innovation has become a necessity, not a choice. Learn how advanced tech solutions can refine operational processes, allowing for better staff compensation and a more satisfying patient experience through automation and online services. Dr. H passionately advocates for native technology solutions tailored to the dental industry's intricacies, highlighting their potential to streamline operations and revolutionize business models.Navigate the labyrinth of banking regulations and macroeconomic dynamics with us, focusing on their implications for the growth of DSOs. The conversation delves into the effects of the Dodd-Frank Act and the critical role of private equity in dental service expansion. With insights into potential interest rate changes and persistent wage growth, Dr. H discusses strategic financial planning to maintain healthy margins. By integrating technology and adjusting fees, DSOs can adapt and thrive amidst economic uncertainties. Tune in for a deep dive into the intersection of technology, finance, and dentistry, and leave with valuable insights for your own practice.If you need help finding the perfect location or your ready to invest in commercial real estate, email us at admin@leadersre.com Sign up for a FREE vulnerability analysis and lease renewal services View our library on apple podcasts or REUniversity.org. Connect on Facebook. Commercial Real Estate Secrets is ranked in the top 50 podcasts on real estate

  In today's podcast episode, we're joined by Alex Johnson, Founder of Fintech Takes, and Paige Paridon, Senior Vice President, Senior Associate General Counsel & Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs at Bank Policy Institute, to take a deep dive into the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Open Banking Rule. The CFPB has issued a groundbreaking final rule implementing Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, significantly expanding consumer access to their financial data. This new Open Banking Rule will have far-reaching implications for financial institutions, fintech companies, and consumers alike. In this episode, we'll explore the key aspects of this landmark regulation, such as: 1. The scope, rule requirements, and compliance deadlines 2. Complexities of implementing new interfaces and data security measures 3. Potential pitfalls and best practices to mitigate risks, including a lawsuit challenging the legality of the rule 4. How the rule can foster innovation and enhanced consumer experiences 5. The impact of presidential election and presumed appointment of new Acting Director of CFPB Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by Gregory Szewczyk and Hilary Lane, Partners in Ballard's Privacy and Data Security Group.

Chris discusses the enduring impact of Barack Obama's presidency, focusing on key legislation such as Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other major policy initiatives. Highlighting how these measures fundamentally changed American healthcare, business, and government, Markowski argues that these policies continue to shape the nation's economic and regulatory landscape. He also shares insights on the challenges future administrations face in dismantling this legacy and restoring growth. www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

Discover the secrets to wealth preservation through the eyes of Andy Schectman, owner of Miles Franklin Precious Metals, as he shares his compelling journey from humble beginnings to achieving over $10 billion in sales. Andy's story is a testament to resilience and vision, starting from selling life insurance policies to borrowing $60,000 to launch his company. Listen closely as he also discusses his friendship with Robert Kiyosaki and their shared mission to prioritize one's future self, providing invaluable lessons in investing in precious metals.We then shift gears to the complex world of banking and financial stability. The warning signs of bank failures loom large as we dissect the implications of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the unsettling potential of bank bail-ins. We highlight real-world examples, like the failure of the First National Bank of Lindsay, Oklahoma, and the contrasting treatment of larger banks, stirring a conversation on public awareness and the role of precious metals as steadfast assets amidst economic turmoil. Insights from financial heavyweights like Stanley Druckenmiller and Paul Tudor Jones underscore the enduring strength of gold and silver, even against a strong dollar.As the episode progresses, we navigate the turbulent waters of global financial systems and the shifting landscape of economic power. The role of the US dollar as the world reserve currency is put under the microscope, alongside the BRICS' emerging influence and the decline of the petrodollar. We also delve into the strategic movements in the global silver market, with countries like Russia and China making significant plays that could signal a global power shift. Through these discussions, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the evolving role of precious metals and central bank digital currencies in shaping the future of global finance. Join us for a thought-provoking examination of these critical issues and their potential long-term impact on international relations and financial stability.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Cantero v Bank of America. In this case, the court considered this issue: When are state laws that regulate national banks preempted under federal law? The case was decided on May 30, 2024. The Supreme Court held that under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, state laws are preempted only if they discriminate against national banks or “prevent or significantly interfere” with a national bank's exercise of its powers, as determined by the standard articulated in Barnett Bank v Nelson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the unanimous opinion of the Court vacating the Second Circuit's judgment for failing to apply the proper preemption test. The Dodd-Frank Act, passed by Congress in 2010, establishes the controlling legal standard for determining when a state consumer financial law, like New York's interest-on-escrow law, is preempted with respect to national banks. Dodd-Frank expressly rejected the position that all state laws regulating national banks are automatically preempted. Rather, a state law is preempted by the National Bank Act only if: (1) the state law discriminates against national banks as compared to state banks; or (2) the state law "prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers." In Barnett Bank v Nelson (1996), the Court explained the test for “prevents or significantly interferes with” requires courts to make a practical assessment of the nature and degree of interference caused by the state law, guided by the Court's precedents. Because the Second Circuit failed to conduct this nuanced analysis and instead employed a categorical test that would preempt virtually all state laws regulating national banks, the Court vacated its judgment and remanded the case for analysis in a manner consistent with the Barnett Bank standard. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Jane Barratt, Chief Advocacy Officer and Head of Global Public Policy at MX Technologies, Inc., discusses the impending game-changing regulations from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to implement Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

On May 30, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cantero v. Bank of America, reversing and remanding the case to the Second Circuit. Rather than articulating a bright line test for preemption, the Supreme Court instructed the circuit court to conduct a “nuanced analysis” to determine whether the National Bank Act preempts a New York state law that requires the payment of 2% interest on mortgage escrow accounts. Per the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit must apply the preemption standard described in the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that a state consumer financial law is preempted “only if” it discriminates against national banks in comparison with state banks; is preempted by another Federal law; or “prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers,” as determined “in accordance with the legal standard for preemption in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States” in Barnett Bank, N.A. v. Nelson. See 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(1). We open today's podcast episode, which repurposes a recent webinar roundtable covering the Cantero decision, with a new preface by moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group. This preface provides an update on an important post-Cantero development: a Ninth Circuit opinion issued on August 23 in another preemption case, Kivett v. Flagstar Bank. Alan explains why the Ninth Circuit's new opinion in Kivett applies a standard that is totally inconsistent with the instructions provided by the Supreme Court in Cantero. Today's episode then proceeds with a discussion featuring Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Partner Joseph Schuster, and four attorneys who each filed an amicus brief in Cantero. These experts share their reactions and explore potential next steps and possible outcomes as the Second Circuit and other courts proceed with efforts to comply with the Supreme Court's Cantero mandate.

Regulators are scrutinizing practices surrounding the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning as well as aftermarket product sales, prompting auto lenders to review processes for themselves and their dealer partners.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau this month published a letter to the U.S. Treasury making it clear that emerging AI-based technology isn't exempt from long-standing consumer protection laws. Lenders must test and monitor the use of new technology and tools and ensure that they convey accurate information to consumers.  At the same time, the CFPB's funding is under scrutiny again, as new arguments question whether the bureau should receive money when the Federal Reserve isn't profitable. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, “the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” are supposed to fund the CFPB.   In powersports, inventory continues to be a challenge across every market segment, spawning elevated promotions to drive sales and operational changes to meet changing consumer demand.  In this episode of the “Weekly Wrap,” Auto Finance News Editor Amanda Harris and Associate Editors Ashley Savage and Jameso Van Bramer discuss top trends in compliance, technology and powersports for the week ended Aug. 23. 

In episode 4 of this series, A. Valerie Mirko, a Partner at Armstrong Teasdale LLP and Leader of the firm's Securities Regulation and Litigation Practice, and William Nelson, an Associate General Counsel at the Investment Adviser Association, discuss recent development in private funds regulation with Karl Egbert, Partner at Baker McKenzie and Co-Chair of the Firm's Global Private Funds Group. The conversation delves into the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on private fund adviser regulation and then focuses on the SEC's Private Fund Adviser Rule, which the Fifth Circuit vacated in June 2024. The conversation examines the impact of these developments on the private fund adviser industry and also addresses SEC rulemaking authority more generally.       Past episodes of the series: Episode 1 (5/22/24) Episode 2 (6/5/2024) Episode 3 (7/24/2024) Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.

This Day in Legal History: Swiss Banks Settle with Holocaust SurvivorsOn August 12, 1998, a landmark settlement was reached when Swiss banks agreed to pay $1.25 billion to Holocaust survivors and their heirs. The settlement resolved lawsuits that accused the banks of withholding millions of dollars deposited by Holocaust victims before and during World War II. For decades, these accounts had been frozen, and the banks had been criticized for their lack of transparency and for making it difficult for survivors and their families to access the funds. The lawsuits brought to light the complex role that Swiss financial institutions played during the war, often prioritizing financial gain over moral responsibility. This settlement was seen as a significant acknowledgment of the wrongs committed and a step toward justice for the victims. The agreement also marked a broader recognition of the need to address the financial injustices faced by Holocaust survivors, setting a precedent for other restitution efforts globally. The $1.25 billion fund was distributed to survivors, heirs, and various Jewish organizations, symbolizing a long-overdue attempt to rectify the banks' wartime conduct. The settlement highlighted the intersection of financial institutions, moral responsibility, and historical accountability in the aftermath of one of history's greatest tragedies.The recent Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy has sent shockwaves through federal health agencies, significantly impacting their ability to impose civil penalties. The decision, which requires a jury trial for civil penalties in SEC cases, is expected to influence how agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conduct enforcement actions. Legal experts suggest that this ruling could lead to increased legal challenges from healthcare entities, such as hospitals and drugmakers, against penalties imposed by these agencies. The ruling has raised questions about the constitutionality of administrative procedures, particularly those handled by administrative law judges, and may force agencies to reassess their enforcement strategies. The decision could also slow down current enforcement actions while agencies evaluate their legal standing. This ruling is likely to embolden those facing civil penalties to challenge the HHS and its agencies in court, especially in areas like Medicare, tobacco regulation, and the 340B Drug Pricing Program.By way of very brief background, in SEC v. Jarkasy, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC's administrative enforcement of fraud claims without jury trials violated the Seventh Amendment, as such claims involve traditional common law matters warranting a jury. The court also ruled that the Dodd-Frank Act's broad delegation of authority to the SEC to choose between administrative proceedings and federal court without clear guidelines violated the nondelegation doctrine. Additionally, the protections against removal for administrative law judges (ALJs) were found to infringe on the President's duty under Article II. The Supreme Court later upheld the Seventh Amendment violation but did not address the other issues.Health Agency Approach on Civil Penalties Shaken by High CourtIsmael "El Mayo" Zambada, a prominent Mexican drug lord and co-founder of the Sinaloa Cartel, claimed he was deceived and forcibly taken to the United States last month. In a statement released by his lawyer, Zambada alleged that he was lured into a meeting by Joaquin Guzman Lopez, the son of his former partner Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, and state officials in Sinaloa. He recounted being ambushed, restrained, and flown to the U.S. under duress. Contrary to Zambada's account, Guzman Lopez's lawyer and U.S. authorities assert that Guzman Lopez surrendered voluntarily after negotiations. During the incident, Zambada claims that one of the officials involved, Hector Cuen, was killed, and his bodyguard has since disappeared. Both Zambada and Guzman Lopez have pleaded not guilty to drug-trafficking charges in the U.S.'El Mayo' says he was ambushed in new account of US arrest | ReutersA federal appeals court has extended an order blocking President Joe Biden's administration from implementing its student debt relief plan, which aimed to lower monthly payments and accelerate loan forgiveness for millions of borrowers. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal from seven Republican-led states, granted an injunction that halts further implementation of the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan. This ruling follows a previous order that temporarily blocked parts of the plan. The court's decision means that while loans already forgiven won't be reversed, future implementations are on hold. The Biden administration criticized the ruling, arguing it would increase costs for borrowers, while the Republican-led states contend that the administration exceeded its legal authority with the plan. The SAVE Plan, which had partially taken effect, was projected to benefit over 20 million borrowers but now faces legal hurdles that may delay or alter its future. This development follows earlier challenges to Biden's broader $430 billion debt cancellation initiative, which was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023.Federal court extends block on Biden's student debt relief plan | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Road to Growth podcast, we are pleased to introduce you to Emmanuel Daniel . Emmanuel is an author, entrepreneur and corporate advisor. He is a futurist, a global thought leader in the future of finance and its impact on business and society. He was listed as a top 10 global influencer in the “Fintech Power50” list for 2021 and 2022. He is also a model train enthusiast. Emmanuel founded the research, publication and consulting house, TAB Global, in 1996. Through its platforms such as The Asian Banker, Wealth and Society, The Banking Academy and TAB Insights, Emmanuel has had extensive contact with leaders in banking and finance around the world. He has served, or is serving in advisory or consulting roles for various public or private sector institutions at any time and is a well regarded mentor and confidante in leadership circles. He won the Citibank Excellence in Business Journalism for Asia in 1999 for his work on the internet in banking. “The Asian Banker Summit” won the best finance conference from the Asian Conference and Summit Awards in 2012. He is sometimes interviewed on BBC, CNBC and Bloomberg. In his first book, “The Great Transition – the personalization of finance is here” published in September 2022, Emmanuel outlines how the banking industry will evolve from being focused on platform technologies to a level of personalization never seen before. He describes the roles of cryptocurrencies, blockchain, gaming and other technologies in this transition. The book was written to help disruptor technologies in finance chart their course. The book features forewords written by former congressman Barney Frank, the co-author of the Dodd-Frank Act legislations that regulates the financial industry in the US today and Richard Sandor, an innovator widely regarded as the “father of financial futures”. His writings are also based on his extensive travel to more than 110 countries, and counting. He posts regularly on his blog and is working towards his second book which is tentatively entitled “The Winning Civilization” and due for publication in 2024. As an entrepreneur, he was previously a member of the Entrepreneurs Organization (EO), a prestigious grouping of young business owners worldwide. Emmanuel was trained as a lawyer, has degrees from the National University of Singapore and the University of London, and attended a course on economics at Columbia University in New York. He travels widely and divides his time between Singapore, Beijing and New York. Learn more and connect with Emmanuel Daniel by visiting him on   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/FkPiiSp9skZX6GXL/?mibextid=WC7FNe Youtube: @emmanueldanielauthor Linkedin: http://linkedin.com/in/emmanuel-daniel-5764482 Twitter: @emmanueldaniel   Be sure to follow us on Twitter: Twitter.com/to_growth on Facebook: facebook.com/Road2Growth   Subscribe to our podcast across the web: https://www.theenriquezgroup.com/blog Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2Cdmacc iTunes: https://apple.co/2F4zAcn Castbox: http://bit.ly/2F4NfQq Google Play: http://bit.ly/2TxUYQ2 Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKnzMRkl-PurAb32mCLCMeA?view_as=subscriber   If you are looking to be a Guest on Podcasts please click below  https://kitcaster.com/rtg/  For any San Diego Real Estate Questions Please Follow Us at web: www.TheEnriquezGroup.com Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKnzMRkl-PurAb32mCLCMeA or Call : 858 -345 - 7829 Recently reduced properties in San Diego County * Click **** bit.ly/3cbT65C **** Here* ************************************************************ Sponsor = www.MelodyClouds.com

A December report issued by staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) discusses several potential modifications to the accredited investor definition, as suggested by sources like the Investor Advisory Committee and the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee.  The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 requires the SEC to review the definition every four years in light of changes in the economy. The goal is to maintain sufficient protection for unsophisticated investors while providing for investor participation in exempt offerings that play an important role in innovation and economic growth.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whether you're a seasoned real estate investor or just getting started, you won't want to miss out on the insights that you'll learn from Eddie Wilson and Sam Kaddah, the mastermind behind one of the nation's leading lending software systems, Liquid Logics. Take a deep dive into the world of private lending and discover how Sam's platform supports both private lenders and institutional players with cutting-edge data and insights. In this episode, you'll learn about: The current state of the marketplace and the rising deployment of private capital into real estate. • Growth statistics: Liquid Logics is on track to handle over $7.4 billion in transactions this year! The shifting trends in real estate investment, from fix-and-flip to new constructions and multi-unit developments. The impact of historical regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act on today's lending environment and the massive vacuum created for private lenders. The innovative world of AI and blockchain technology in lending, including the exciting future of tokenization and how it could revolutionize real estate investments. For more information and to contact Sam, visit liquidlogics.com.

Whether you're a seasoned real estate investor or just getting started, you won't want to miss out on the insights that you'll learn from Eddie Wilson and Sam Kaddah, the mastermind behind one of the nation's leading lending software systems, Liquid Logics. Take a deep dive into the world of private lending and discover how Sam's platform supports both private lenders and institutional players with cutting-edge data and insights. In this episode, you'll learn about: The current state of the marketplace and the rising deployment of private capital into real estate. Growth statistics: Liquid Logics is on track to handle over $7.4 billion in transactions this year! The shifting trends in real estate investment, from fix-and-flip to new constructions and multi-unit developments. The impact of historical regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act on today's lending environment and the massive vacuum created for private lenders. The innovative world of AI and blockchain technology in lending, including the exciting future of tokenization and how it could revolutionize real estate investments. For more information and to contact Sam, visit liquidlogics.com.

Special guest Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute and former Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Financial Research in the U.S. Treasury Department, joins us to discuss his recent blog post published on The Federalist Society website in which he urges Congress to look into the question of whether the Federal Reserve can lawfully continue to fund the CFPB if (as now) the Fed has no earnings. We begin with a review of the Supreme Court's recent decision in CFSA v. CFPB which held that the CFPB's funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Alex follows with an explanation of the CFPB's statutory funding mechanism as established by the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that the CFPB is to be funded from the Federal Reserve System's earnings. Then Alex discusses the Fed's recent financial statements and their use of non-standard accounting, the source of the Fed's losses, whether Congress when writing Dodd-Frank considered the impact of Fed losses on the CFPB's funding, and how the Fed can return to profitability. We conclude the episode by responding to arguments made by observers as to why the Fed's current losses do not prevent its continued funding of the CFPB, potential remedies if the CFPB has been unlawfully funded by the Fed, and the bill introduced in Congress to clarify the statutory language regarding the CFPB's funding. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis delves into the renewed focus on incentive compensation by federal financial regulators. Joined by colleagues Sheri Adler and Jina Davidovich from the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation group, the discussion centers on the implications of Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The episode explores the historical context, proposed rule changes, and the potential impact on financial institutions and their employees. Key topics include the scope of covered institutions, specific requirements for senior executives and significant risk-takers, and the governance and compliance obligations that may arise if the rules are enacted.

On today's show, we are joined again by Bob Long, CEO of StepStone Private Wealth to discuss the basics of private credit, how the Dodd-Frank Act affected the banking industry, what types of deals StepStone is pursuing, why private credit earns higher yields, and much more! Find complete show notes on our blogs... Ben Carlson's A Wealth of Common Sense Michael Batnick's The Irrelevant Investor Feel free to shoot us an email at animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com with any feedback, questions, recommendations, or ideas for future topics of conversation.   Check out the latest in financial blogger fashion at The Compound shop: https://www.idontshop.com Past performance is not indicative of future results. The material discussed has been provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal or investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security or strategy. The investment strategy and themes discussed herein may be unsuitable for investors depending on their specific investment objectives and financial situation. Information obtained from third-party sources is believed to be reliable though its accuracy is not guaranteed.   Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information. Obviously nothing on this channel should be considered as personalized financial advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Special guest Professor Hal Scott of Harvard Law School joins us today as we delve into the thought-provoking question of whether the Supreme Court's recent decision in the landmark case of CFSA v. CFPB really hands the CFPB a winning outcome, or does the Court's validation of the agency's statutory funding structure simply open up another question: whether the CFPB is legally permitted to receive funds from the Federal Reserve if (as now) the Fed has no earnings. In other words, was the outcome in CFSA v. CFPB an illusory Pyrrhic victory for the CFPB? And, what happens next? Our episode begins with a brief discussion of the underlying case. Professor Scott follows with an explanation of the CFPB's statutory funding mechanism as established by the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that the CFPB is to receive its funding out of the Federal Reserve System's “earnings”, and the Supreme Court's decision upholding that structure. Then, we turn to an in-depth discussion of the op-ed Professor Scott published in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The CFPB's Pyrrhic Victory in the Supreme Court”, in which Professor Scott explains that even though the CFPB's funding mechanism as written was upheld in CFSA v. CFPB, this will not help the agency now or at any time in the future when the Federal Reserve operates at a deficit – in fact, has no earnings it can legally send to the CFPB. Professor Scott describes how his focus on the Federal Reserve led him to scrutinize and then question the approach taken in the majority opinion; and then turns to an explanation of how a constitutional issue under the Appropriations Clause in fact may persist because in the absence of Fed earnings, funds paid to the CFPB arguably have not been drawn from the Treasury. We then go over possible arguments challenging the CFPB's issuance and enforcement of regulations, and what might ensue when the federal district court takes up CFSA v. CFPB for further proceedings. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts this week's episode.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis discusses the recent changes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) made to its rules for designating nonbanks subject to supervision due to potential risks to consumers. Willis provides a background on this authority granted to the CFPB by the Dodd-Frank Act and discusses the CFPB's increased use of this authority in recent years. He also delves into the implications of the CFPB's updated rules, emphasizing the need for nonbanks to prepare for potential supervision and to build robust compliance management systems. The episode provides valuable insights for nonbanks navigating the regulatory landscape and the potential for CFPB supervision.

Trial by jury and fair court proceedings bound by constitutional restraint are bedrock principles of our federal government.  Imagine being charged with a crime by a federal agency except the agency handles the entire court proceedings with a judge on its payroll.  The Securities and Exchange Commission was created by a 1934 act in response to the Great Depression and Stock Market Crash of 1929.  In 2008, in response to the financial crisis, its powers were significantly expanded through the Dodd Frank Act.  Under that legislation, the SEC was allowed to have in-house court proceedings with administrative law judges it hires.  As such, prosecutorial, judicial, enforcement and punishment power is all held within a singular agency.  A current Supreme Court case, SEC v. Jarkesy, is challenging that power.  Join our all-star student panel and our special guest, Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, as we discuss this case, its ramifications and the caution George Washington gave us when he spoke against unfair quasi-courts.

On February 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., a case involving the effect of the Dodd-Frank Act on the scope of preemption under the National Bank Act (NBA). The specific question before the Court is whether, post-Dodd-Frank, the NBA preempts a New York statute requiring banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts. The decision, however, could have ramifications well beyond the specific New York law at issue. This episode repurposes a recent webinar roundtable and brings together as our guests four attorneys who filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court: Jonathan Y. Ellis, William M. Jay, and Matthew A. Schwartz, partners in private law firms, and Professor Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr. After we review the procedural history of Cantero, our guests discuss the arguments made in favor of and against preemption in their amicus briefs and share their reactions to the oral argument and predictions for how the Court will rule. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former Practice Group Leader in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion.

In this pivotal episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis, alongside colleagues Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso, explores the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) groundbreaking proposal for regular and extensive data collection within the auto finance industry. This episode is part of our special series on auto finance, where we unpack the implications of this initiative, rooted in the authority of Section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Act, for both the industry and consumers. As the auto finance sector experiences significant growth amid rising prices and rates, we shed light on the CFPB's strategy to enhance market monitoring and ensure transparency. Join us as we explore the potential impacts of this development, the reactions from major auto finance companies, and what this means for the future of consumer financial services. Don't miss this insightful discussion that navigates the complexities of regulatory changes and their effects on the auto finance landscape.Stay tuned for our Auto Finance Special Series on The Consumer Finance Podcast, where we'll be exploring various facets of the auto finance industry, from regulatory changes and compliance challenges to market trends and future outlooks. This series is essential for anyone looking to stay ahead in the rapidly evolving world of auto finance. Subscribe to our podcast on your favorite platform to ensure you don't miss an episode!

This Day in Legal History: WWI German Use of Chemical Weapons on Canadian TroopsOn April 24, 1915, during the Second Battle of Ypres in World War I, German forces launched one of the first large-scale chemical weapon attacks in history. This attack targeted Canadian troops stationed near the town of Ypres in Belgium. The Germans released chlorine gas, which spread over the Allied trenches, causing widespread injury and death. This marked a grim milestone in the use of modern chemical warfare. Initially unprepared for such a method of warfare, the Allies soon developed their own chemical weapons and retaliatory tactics. British and French forces began incorporating gas warfare into their strategies, leading to an escalation of chemical weapon use on all sides. The devastating effects of gas attacks during World War I highlighted the urgent need for regulation. Efforts to ban the use of chemical weapons gained momentum after the war. One significant advocate for such measures was the International Committee of the Red Cross, which pushed for international agreements to prohibit chemical warfare. Their advocacy was crucial in shaping public and political opinion on the issue.This advocacy culminated in the drafting of the Geneva Protocol in 1925. Formally known as the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, this treaty marked a significant step forward in international law. Signed on June 17, 1925, the protocol was initially signed by 38 countries. The Protocol prohibited the use of asphyxiating, poisonous gases, and bacteriological methods of warfare in conflicts. Despite its limitations—such as not restricting the production, storage, or transfer of these weapons—it represented a key milestone in the efforts to control and eventually eliminate the use of chemical weapons in conflicts. This agreement laid the groundwork for later treaties that aimed to further control or eradicate weapons of mass destruction.Boeing Co. executives Dave Calhoun and Stan Deal are set to retire with substantial compensation packages totaling approximately $45 million, despite their tenure overlapping with significant manufacturing issues in the 737 series jets. This substantial payout is possible because they are retiring rather than being dismissed, allowing them to avoid the company's clawback policy which could have otherwise enabled Boeing to reclaim some of their earnings due to negligence or misconduct. Their strategic retirement comes at a time when Boeing is under heavy scrutiny following a safety incident involving a 737 Max 9, which led to a 32% drop in the company's share prices and raised serious quality concerns among stakeholders.In response to these quality issues, Boeing shareholders are expected to approve new compensation guidelines that tie executive pay more closely to safety and operational performance. This policy change follows a leadership reshuffle initiated two months after the incident, signaling a concerted effort to pivot towards stringent safety measures. The new policy is a shift from the previous model, where operational performance was less significantly weighted compared to financial metrics.The existing clawback policy at Boeing allows for the recovery of incentive-based compensation in cases of misconduct or negligence that impacts the company's product safety. However, this policy requires significant misconduct for activation, which has not been pursued in the case of Calhoun and Deal according to the latest reports.An element of law relevant here is the clawback provision under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, enhanced by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. These laws were designed to improve corporate governance and accountability, especially in the wake of financial scandals. Under these regulations, public companies can reclaim executive compensation in the event of misconduct that leads to financial restatements or significant failures in corporate governance. This legislative framework is crucial for understanding how companies like Boeing create and enforce policies meant to ensure executive accountability, especially in situations impacting public safety and investor interests. Boeing Leaders' Windfall Predates New Safety Goals Tied to PayBoeing to face questions on potential CEO candidates, Spirit talks | ReutersThe U.S. Senate has passed a bill requiring ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to divest its U.S. operations within nine months or face a nationwide ban. President Joe Biden intends to sign the bill, initiating a 270-day period for ByteDance to complete the sale, potentially extendable by 90 days. If no sale occurs by then, the fate of TikTok could depend on the incoming U.S. president after the January 2025 inauguration.Once the law is enacted, TikTok is expected to file a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality and seek a preliminary injunction to prevent the law's enforcement while the case is considered. This legal strategy mirrors TikTok's successful efforts in Montana, where it obtained an injunction against a state-level ban.If TikTok secures a preliminary injunction, the sale could be delayed, allowing TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. during the legal proceedings. This situation recalls previous attempts by the Trump administration to ban TikTok and WeChat, which were thwarted by legal challenges, leading to Biden rescinding those orders in 2021.The outcome of this legislation and TikTok's legal challenges could significantly impact its 170 million U.S. users, although no immediate changes to the app are expected until the divestment period concludes in early 2025.Regarding international considerations, the divestment of TikTok might require approval from the Chinese government due to export controls on certain technologies, including TikTok's recommendation algorithm.TikTok ban: What happens next after US Senate passed the bill? | ReutersThe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has adopted a comprehensive ban on non-compete clauses, which are contractual agreements that limit employees' ability to switch jobs within their industry. This decision, prompted by an executive order from President Biden three years ago, aims to mitigate the restrictions that roughly 20% of U.S. workers face due to such clauses. FTC Chair Lina Khan highlighted that this rule is about protecting economic liberty and dismissed claims that the FTC lacks the authority to enforce such regulations.The new rule, passed with a 3-2 vote, will prohibit most new non-compete agreements, including those for senior executives. However, pre-existing agreements for high-earning executives in policymaking positions will remain unaffected. Lower-level employees' existing non-compete agreements will become void six months after the rule is implemented, potentially boosting U.S. earnings by over $400 billion in the next decade. This rule excludes employees of non-profits and franchises.The rule has significant support from labor organizations like AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, as well as Democratic senators and attorneys general from various states. The public largely favors the ban, as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of supportive comments received during the FTC's consultation period.Opposition comes from business groups and some FTC members who argue that the rule is too broad and infringes on companies' rights to protect confidential information. Critics, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue that the FTC oversteps its regulatory bounds and threatens economic micromanagement. This has sparked promises of legal challenges against the rule's enforcement.The key debate here is over the FTC's rulemaking authority. This aspect is crucial because it underpins the entire legal challenge likely to follow. Opponents argue the FTC lacks the explicit congressional authorization needed to enact such broad economic regulations, a point of contention that echoes recent Supreme Court skepticism towards perceived agency overreach. This legal argument could significantly influence the rule's future and its impact on American labor markets.FTC Issues Worker Non-Compete Ban as Chamber Lawsuit Looms (2)U.S. bans noncompete agreements for nearly all jobsChangpeng Zhao, the founder of Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, is facing a proposed sentence of 36 months in prison after pleading guilty to charges related to money laundering violations. U.S. prosecutors have made this recommendation due to the severity of Zhao's infractions, emphasizing that his actions knowingly violated U.S. laws. Although federal guidelines suggest a maximum of 18 months for such offenses, the prosecution argues for a longer sentence given the case's circumstances.Zhao resigned as CEO of Binance in November following his and the company's admission of these violations, resulting in a staggering penalty of $4.32 billion for Binance. This penalty includes a $1.81 billion criminal fine and $2.51 billion in restitution. Additionally, Zhao has agreed to a personal fine of $50 million and to sever all ties with Binance, which he originally founded in 2017.Binance itself was found to have failed in reporting over 100,000 transactions suspected of being linked to terrorist groups such as Hamas, al Qaeda, and ISIS. Furthermore, the platform was implicated in facilitating the sale of child sexual abuse materials and processing a significant amount of ransomware payments.Zhao, who is out on a $175 million bond in the U.S., has consented to these penalties and has opted not to appeal any sentence up to 18 months. His sentencing is scheduled for April 30 in Seattle.US seeks 36 months' jail for Binance founder Zhao | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join this panel discussion with Meredith Fuchs, General Counsel at Plaid, and Ben Maxim, Chief Digital Strategy and Information Officer at Michigan State University Federal Credit Union, highlighting initial takeaways from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's proposed rulemaking to establish open banking and implement section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Fuchs and Maxim cover the benefits and challenges of building APIs to share consumer financial data and how your credit union should be evaluating this transition to open banking as the CFPB works to finalize its rule.  Key Takeaways: Understand the objective of the CFPB's Section 1033 open banking rulemaking; Hear a credit union's perspective regarding their journey to build an API; and Delve into some unresolved issues from the CFPB's proposed rule. 

Podcast #69, "The Coming Perfect Storm," features a discussion between Dean and Len Suzio about new regulatory challenges for the banking sector. Len highlights the implications of two key regulations: Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the new Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rule. Section 1071 requires detailed reporting of small business lending data, including race and ethnicity of borrowers, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The revised CRA rule emphasizes the impact of fair lending issues on a bank's CRA rating and introduces more stringent criteria for evaluating discriminatory or illegal credit practices. Len expresses concerns about the potential misuse of small business lending data and the new CRA rule's assessment areas, which could unfairly impact banks' operations and regulatory compliance. He notes that these changes could lead to more aggressive regulatory approaches, especially in light of the Department of Justice's "Anti-redlining Initiative." The podcast concludes with an acknowledgment of the seriousness of these regulatory changes and their potential impact on the banking industry. Brought to you by GeoDataVision and M&M Consulting

On today's episode of FYI, ARK CEO and CIO Cathie Wood and ARK Advisor Angie Dalton interview Commissioner Caroline Pham from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The episode explores the intricacies of digital asset regulation and the CFTC's role in overseeing derivatives markets. Commissioner Pham shares her extensive background in both the public and private sectors, touching on the evolution of financial regulations, crypto's impact on traditional markets, and the potential of blockchain technology. Key discussions include the CFTC's bipartisan structure, its approach to crypto regulation, and insights into the interplay between technology, finance, and regulation. This episode provides a unique perspective on the balance between innovation and regulation in the rapidly evolving digital asset landscape.“There's no good version of AI, nor evil. It's just technology, and why not study it and use it and see if you can deploy it if it's going to make sense for you and your clients, your stakeholders, and your investors.” – Commissioner Caroline PhamKey Points From This Episode:Introduction of Commissioner Caroline Pham and her role at the CFTC.Pham's disclaimer clarifying her personal views do not represent the CFTC.Overview of the CFTC's structure and comparison with the SEC.Discussion of the derivatives market and its vast scope.Pham's background, including her work during the financial crisis and with Dodd-Frank Act.Insight into the regulatory treatment of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.Pham's career journey from the public to the private sector, focusing on financial regulation and compliance.Exploration of blockchain technology's potential in various sectors beyond finance.Commissioner Pham highlights the integration of blockchain technology in gaming, focusing on its potential to create new types of in-game economies and digital interactions.The importance of understanding the risks and regulations associated with digital assets.Final thoughts on the future of regulation in the digital asset space.

On December 12, the FTC issued the Combating Auto Retail Scams Rule (“CARS Rule”) which will broadly regulate sales activities of motor vehicle dealers. Authorized by Congress through the Dodd-Frank Act and promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act (as opposed to the FTC's more cumbersome Magnusson-Moss authority), the final rule will take effect on July 30, 2024. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/ftcs-auto-dealer-rule-promises-sweeping-industry-changes Ioana Gorecki igorecki@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8417 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/ioana-gorecki Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach

Providers of consumer financial services that rely on federal preemption to charge customers uniform interest rates and fees on a nationwide basis are currently facing a series of legislative and litigation challenges. In this episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, we first discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Cantero v. Bank of America on the question whether the National Bank Act preempts state laws requiring the payment of interest on mortgage escrow accounts and look at the competing arguments and preemption standards under consideration. We then look at the Dodd-Frank Act's provisions on federal preemption for national banks and federal savings associations, OCC regulations addressing the scope of federal preemption, and federal statutes providing interest rate exportation authority for national and state-chartered banks and other institutions. We then turn to current legal challenges to rate exportation authority, focusing on state laws opting out of federal law allowing interest rate exportation by state banks, state laws defining “true lender” to target nonbank/bank partnerships seeking to take advantage of federal interest rate exportation authority, and the California trial court's recent ruling in a very important “true lender” lawsuit. We conclude with a discussion of the potential implications of a U.S. Supreme Court override of the Chevron deference framework for OCC and FDIC regulations interpreting federal statutes on interest rate authority of national and state banks. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, joined by John Culhane, Reid Herlihy, and Ronald Vaske, partners in the Group, and Mindy Harris, Of Counsel in the Group.

The authors of our recent Legal Update provide an overview of the SEC's (Securities and Exchange Commission) recently adopted rule, which prohibits conflicts of interest in certain securitizations as required under the Dodd-Frank Act. Although not perfect, the final rule is a significant improvement over the proposal. However, all securitization participants will need to assess their securitization programs and implement various compliance programs before the final rule becomes effective on June 9, 2025. Please join Mayer Brown lawyers Stuart Litwin, Christopher Horn and Michelle Stasny as they discuss the recently adopted rule.

There's a lawsuit with the potential to change the REAL ESTATE industry in America as we know it. We talked about it two years ago and it's getting more serious. LISTEN UP. The real estate game is changing - screw that - it already has and no-one is REALLY talking about it....until now. Real Estate of Tomorrow holds conversations on crucial topics needed to successfully navigate the shifting real estate industry. In this bi-weekly podcast we break down the massive shifts in real estate and tell you the specific steps you need to take to kick a$$ in the coming years, just like we are. We're your hosts, Edgardo Balentine and Scott DiGregorio, giving you the rundown on real estate from decades of experience and the new generation. Today we talk about how you can be responsive to the industry changes, instead of panicking or doing nothing. This class action lawsuit is shaking up what we're used to in the industry, but there could still be an opportunity. You'll need to know how to prepare so you make the MOST of this situation. What are you doing today to be relevant tomorrow? What are you doing today to be successful tomorrow? success@realestateoftomorrow.com  Hit us up.   Time stamps: [00:36] - Which lawsuit are we talking about? [02:51] - So, what's the big deal? PART 1 [05:37] - So, what's the big deal? PART 2 [07:12] - Don't wait until the last second. [09:07] - You need to at least have a response. [10:44] - Who does this impact more the buying agent or the listing agent? [13:01] - Is this another historic shift like years ago with the Dodd–Frank Act? [16:02] - What's the influence of agents? PART 1 [18:44] - What's the influence of agents? PART 2 [20:47] - Here are ideas on how you can PREPARE. [23:35] - Ask yourself: “Where's the opportunity?” [26:27] - Do you know what you're actually offering? [29:15] - Do you know how to evaluate your offers and business? [31:18] - This is our PREDICTION.   Links: Real Estate of Tomorrow Edgardo Balentine  Scott DiGregorio   Podcast episode mentioned: Episode 1: This lawsuit might become a real estate apocalypse  

On this day in legal history, November 27, 1815, marked a significant moment in the constitutional journey of Poland. Emperor Alexander I of Russia, in his capacity as King of Poland, signed a constitution for the Kingdom of Poland, a state reconstituted under Russian dominance. This event followed the Congress of Vienna's directive to provide a constitutional framework for Poland, leading to the unofficial naming of the state as Congress Poland or Kongresówka.The Kingdom of Poland, established as one of the smallest Polish states in history, was significantly smaller than both the preceding Duchy of Warsaw and the earlier Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The constitution was unilaterally granted by the ruler without parliamentary vote, reflecting a top-down approach to governance.Prince Adam Czartoryski played a pivotal role in drafting this constitution, although its final version bore the edits and influences of Emperor Alexander I and his advisors. Notably liberal for its time, the constitution promised freedoms including speech and religious tolerance, showcasing the influence of both Polish and Russian Enlightenment thought. However, in contrast to the Constitution of the Duchy of Warsaw, it favored the nobility and rolled back certain rights previously extended to Polish Jews and peasants.The Russian authorities never fully honored the constitution's provisions. Its liberal yet vague articles were frequently manipulated, avoided, or outright violated. The promised parliament, scheduled to convene biennially, only met sporadically, with sessions in 1818, 1820, 1826, and 1830, the latter two held secretly. The infrequent sessions and the government's conservative stance within them sparked liberal dissent among deputies.This growing dissatisfaction, fueled by the disregard for constitutional promises, eventually led to the November Uprising in 1830. During this tumultuous period, the constitution underwent modifications, but following the uprising's failure, it was replaced by the Organic Statute of the Kingdom of Poland on February 26, 1832. This new statute, far more conservative and granted by Tsar Nicholas I of Russia, never saw actual implementation, marking the end of a brief but pivotal chapter in Poland's constitutional history.Kirkland & Ellis, a top-grossing law firm in Big Law, recently reported substantial earnings from retainer payments connected to the bankruptcies of Rite Aid Corp. and WeWork Inc., totaling $41.5 million. These payments come in addition to a $2.5 million retainer from another bankrupt client, SmileDirectClub Inc. Kirkland, recognized for its large number of nonequity partners, has recently inducted seven new partners from its restructuring practice, which gained prominence for representing several cryptocurrency companies in Chapter 11 cases.Kirkland's notable role in high-profile bankruptcies involves complex legal and financial navigations, though the firm did not comment on its specific work for WeWork and Rite Aid. In WeWork's case, Kirkland received over $22 million in retainers and is involved in the company's bankruptcy process to address lease issues, with billing rates for its lawyers ranging from $685 to $2,245 per hour. Other law firms, including Munger, Tolles & Olson; Cole Schotz; and Canada's Goodmans, are also advising WeWork, with varying retainer fees and hourly rates.For Rite Aid's bankruptcy, Kirkland disclosed receiving about $19.5 million in retainers, with similar hourly rates as in the WeWork case. Rite Aid has engaged additional legal counsel, including Cole Schotz, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and Kobre & Kim, each receiving significant retainer payments and billing at various hourly rates. The company, under new legal leadership, faces a deadline to emerge from Chapter 11 by March 1.WeWork, Rite Aid Bankruptcy Fees $41.5 Million Haul for KirklandThe Federal Defender Supreme Court Resource & Assistance Panel (DSCRAP) has become instrumental in aiding federal public defenders in preparing for arguments before the US Supreme Court. Andrew Adler, a federal defender, exemplifies this effort, making his third appearance at the Supreme Court, a rare achievement for federal public defenders who usually argue only once before the justices. This trend is notable, as federal defenders across the nation have argued at least one case each term since 2000, according to Adler.The Supreme Court's limited case docket intensifies the competition for arguing cases, with elite law firms often pressuring defenders to hand over their cases to more experienced advocates. To counter this, DSCRAP supports first-time advocates by partnering them with experienced federal defenders. This initiative is a response to criticisms from Supreme Court justices regarding the quality of representation provided by criminal defense attorneys.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for instance, criticized attorneys unwilling to pass their cases to seasoned Supreme Court advocates, labeling it as "malpractice." This sentiment reflects the dominance of a small, elite group of big firm lawyers in the Supreme Court bar. However, federal defenders often possess deep subject matter expertise and extensive experience in federal appellate courts.Andrew Adler's preparation for his current case, Jackson v. United States, demonstrates the collaborative efforts to ensure successful arguments. DSCRAP assisted in brainstorming strategies and planned moot courts for Adler, while he also worked with Supreme Court veteran Jeff Fisher for brief preparation. Michael Caruso, the federal public defender for the Southern District of Florida, emphasizes the value of partnering with experienced high court veterans for insights and argument preparation.This collaborative approach aims to balance the often David and Goliath-like scenario federal defenders face when opposing top government lawyers, like the U.S. Solicitor General's Office attorneys. The partnerships and support systems developed within the federal defender community illustrate their commitment to providing quality representation in the nation's highest court, countering the perceived home court advantage of repeat players.Federal Defenders Combine Forces to Argue at US Supreme CourtThe new Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules for clawing back executive pay are causing significant challenges and discussions in corporate America. These rules, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 but only issued in 2022, require companies to adopt policies to recoup bonuses from executives in cases of accounting errors. Failing to implement these policies by the December 1 deadline risks expulsion from stock exchanges like Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange.The complexity of these rules is considerable, as demonstrated by a legal team at Latham & Watkins LLP, who spent over five hours on a call just to create a flowchart for clients. The SEC's directive primarily targets bonuses linked to earnings metrics that are later found to be miscalculated. This not only includes major financial restatements, known as "Big R" corrections, but also smaller, often unnoticed adjustments labeled "Little R" revisions.These "Little R" revisions, typically slipped into regular financial filings, are more common than the more conspicuous "Big R" restatements. However, the SEC's new rules do not cover out-of-period adjustments, which are minor fixes to immaterial errors in past financial statements. Despite this, companies must now indicate on their annual financial statements if any past correction, including out-of-period adjustments, was made.This means companies must now discern between "Little R" revisions and out-of-period adjustments more carefully, a task that has gained new significance under these rules. As Keith Halverstam of Latham & Watkins LLP notes, this represents a new reality where both executive and accounting teams need to be acutely aware of these distinctions.Beyond accounting complexities, the SEC rules also raise questions about their applicability to overseas companies listed on US exchanges, especially in countries where clawing back pay is prohibited. Additionally, the rules apply to the pre-tax amount of wrongly awarded compensation, posing challenges for long-term incentive programs tied to company stock performance.As companies navigate these new regulations, the focus will also shift to how these policies are implemented in practice, leading to further questions and potential issues, as noted by Veronica Wissel of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This situation indicates a significant shift in executive compensation and corporate governance, requiring meticulous compliance and strategic planning.SEC Executive Clawback Rules Bring Late Nights as Deadline NearsIn recent days, New York has seen a surge in lawsuits filed against notable individuals under the Adult Survivors Act (ASA). This act, passed in May 2022, was a critical amendment to state law, allowing alleged victims of sexual offenses, where the statute of limitations had lapsed, to file civil suits within a one-year period. This "lookback window" began on November 24, 2022, and was set to close on November 24, 2023, creating a sense of urgency for filings.The ASA was designed to address the delayed effects of trauma often experienced by survivors of sexual assault, recognizing that many are unable to come forward immediately after the incident. This legislation mirrors the earlier Child Victims Act of 2019, providing a similar opportunity for adults.As the deadline approached, there was a notable increase in high-profile lawsuits. Figures like Sean "Diddy" Combs, New York Mayor Eric Adams, and former President Donald Trump were among those sued under the ASA. For example, Trump was ordered to pay $5 million in damages to writer E. Jean Carroll for defamation and battery related to an incident alleged to have occurred in 1996.This wave of lawsuits highlights a crucial aspect of the ASA: its capacity to empower survivors of historic sexual abuse to seek justice, regardless of the elapsed time. While the law initially saw relatively few filings, the rush near the deadline indicates a significant response from survivors seizing this opportunity.Overall, the ASA has facilitated over 2,500 legal actions, underscoring the widespread impact of sexual assault and the need for legal avenues to address long-standing grievances. The law's expiry has prompted a final push for justice, bringing numerous cases into the public eye and spotlighting the pervasive issue of sexual misconduct across various sectors.Adult Survivors Act deadline prompts rush of sexual assault lawsuitsGovernor Hochul Signs Adult Survivors ActActor Jamie Foxx accused of sexual abuse in New York lawsuit | ReutersNew York Mayor Eric Adams accused of sexual assault in 1993 | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On October 3, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in CFSA v. CFPB, a case with profound potential implications for the future of the CFPB. The Court will rule on whether the CFPB's funding mechanism violates the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be.  Our special guests are six renowned attorneys who filed amicus briefs in the case: Michael Williams, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the West Virginia Attorney General; Adam Levitin, Professor, Georgetown University of Law Center; Scott Nelson, Public Citizen Litigation Group; Jeffrey Naimon, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Joshua Katz, Research Fellow, Cato Institute; and John Masslon, Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation. This two-part episode repurposes our widely-attended and highly interactive webinar held on October 17. In Part II, each of our guests offers his predictions for how the Court is likely to rule in CFSA v. CFPB. We then discuss each party's position regarding what remedy the Court should impose if it rules that that the CFPB's funding mechanism  is unconstitutional, including whether the relevant provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are severable and how a ruling against the CFPB should impact existing CFPB regulations. We conclude with a discussion of the kinds of non-constitutional legal challenges the CFPB is currently facing or is likely to face in the future, including the potential impact of a Supreme Court decision overruling its 1984 Chevron decision dealing with judicial deference to federal agency rules. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion.

“Banks have long supported consumers accessing their own data, but believe it should be done in a safe and sound way that provides them with control,” says ABA VP Ryan Miller. With respect to Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB “has attempted to put that into place here.” In the latest episode of the ABA Banking Journal Podcast — sponsored by Intrafi — Miller provides an overview of the long-awaited Section 1033 proposed rule. In this episode, Fink also talks about: How the bureau's proposed framework recognizes industry-led efforts like FDX to facilitate safe data-sharing. The end of screen-scraping as envisioned in the proposal. Challenges in the proposal on liability issues and privacy. The need for a level playing field in terms of how Section 1033 supervision is applied across banks, nonbank fintech providers and aggregators. The compliance timelines envisioned for banks of different sizes and the types of accounts covered. How core providers will be positioned to help banks comply. To join ABA's comment letter working group, contact Ryan Miller.

In the latest Street Talk podcast, Davis Polk Partner David Portilla says implementing early remediation triggers outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act would be more effective than the Basel III endgame to avoid repeating the spring 2023 bank failures. In the episode, Portilla made the case for enacting early remediation triggers proposed in section 166 of the Dodd-Frank Act. That provision directed the Fed to adopt regulations for the early remediation of financial weakness. The Fed outlined four different levels under an early remediation framework, but never implemented the rules. 

In this action-packed episode of the Mark Moss Show, delve into the shifting global economic landscape with BRICS nations' move to reduce reliance on the US dollar. Learn why owning cars and luxury homes are becoming a distant dream for many. Discover the most significant reform in the US financial markets since the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 and find out who the mystery wallet holding a massive amount of Bitcoin might be. All this and more in this must-listen episode!TAGS: Bitcoin, BRICS, US Dollar, De-dollarization, Financial Markets, Dodd-Frank Act, SEC, Shadow Banks, Crypto Mystery, US Economy, Global Trade, Financial Reforms, Car Economy, Real Estate, Mark Moss ShowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Imagine waking up one day and realizing that your entire life's savings were at risk due to reckless financial decisions made by major global institutions. In this captivating episode, we dissect the tumultuous events that led to the 2008 financial crisis, analyzing the reckless subprime lending, and the colossal investment banks who bet against their own junk product. We shine a light on the few who foresaw this storm coming and went against the grain to bet against the housing market. Ever wondered if the new financial reforms after the 2008 crisis really made a difference? We'll take you through the significant reforms, including the Dodd-Frank Act in the US and the Banking Act of 2009 in the UK. We ask tough questions about their effectiveness and highlight the importance of a collaborative, global effort to ensure their efficacy. Moreso, we emphasize the critical role of financial literacy in safeguarding our finances. And what about financial education? It's a taboo subject for many, but it's an area we should all be focusing on. We delve into the lack of financial literacy, the difficulty in discussing salaries and financial resources, and the power of negotiation for better contracts and promotions. We also examine the role of speculation in decisions like remortgages and investments, stressing the need to be aware of the risks involved. Let's not forget the lessons we learned - or failed to learn - from the 2008 financial crisis. Tune in for an insightful discussion. Remember, knowledge is the tool, but wisdom is the craft.Support the showCheck us out and send us a message on our instagram, Tik Tok and Youtube platforms @the.needle.moverswww.theneedlemovers.xyz

Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank, and Meltem Demirors, chief strategy officer of CoinShares, share their concerns about crypto in the U.S. following a wild week in the banking sector. With Signature Bank's takeover looking like a targeted takedown and crypto-friendly upstarts like Custodia being shadowbanned by the Fed, the two longtime experts look ahead at the fights to come. Is USDC next to land in regulators' crosshairs? Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, Castbox, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights: how crypto is viewed as a “big, scary, and strange” industry how Signature and Silvergate became so important for the crypto industry with SEN and Signet why Caitlin says it's “crystal clear” that we are now in Operation Choke Point 2.0, with U.S. regulators pushing to debank the crypto industry why Caitlin says the Fed's vote against Custodia's application was preordained whether Sen. Elizabeth Warren had an impact on the current crisis how everything comes down to game theory whether VCs are responsible for causing the bank run whether the rollback in 2018 of certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act played a role in the recent collapse Caitlin's hot takes on what happened with Signature Bank the unique characteristics of Custodia's business model as a bank how stablecoins challenge the current financial system why it's so important for crypto to improve its public perception Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Halborn Guests: Meltem Demirors, Chief Strategy Officer at CoinShares Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank Links Previous coverage of Unchained: Jim Bianco on Why the Banking System Has Always Been Broken The Fed Is In Checkmate: What Will Powell Do? The Fall of SVB: What Happened and How It Affects Crypto NYT: Congress Approves First Big Dodd-Frank Rollback NYMAG: Barney Frank Talks More About the Surprise Shuttering of Signature Bank WSJ Editorial Board: Signature Bank's Crypto Execution Unchained: FDIC Denies Asking Signature Buyers to Give Up Crypto: Report Was Signature Bank Actually Insolvent? Circle to Bring On New Banking Partner for USDC Minting, Redemption Circle Clears Backlog of USDC Minting and Redemption Requests Regulators Close Signature Bank Following SVB Collapse ​​Silvergate to Wind Down Operations in ‘Voluntary Liquidation' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices