Podcasts about financial services dfs

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in National Rifle Association of America v Vullo.      In this case, the court considered this issue: does a New York regulator's discouragement of companies from doing business with the National Rifle Association after the Parkland school shooting constitute coercion in violation of the First Amendment? The case was decided on May 30, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the NRA plausibly alleged that the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA's gun-promotion advocacy. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Government officials are free to criticize particular viewpoints and try to persuade others, but they cannot use state power to punish or suppress disfavored speech. Under the 1963 case Bantam Books v Sullivan, the key question is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the government official's actions could reasonably be understood as a threat of adverse consequences aimed at coercing a private party to punish or suppress someone else's speech on the government's behalf. Factors to consider include the official's regulatory authority, the language and tone of the communications, how they were perceived, and whether they referred to adverse consequences. Here, the NRA plausibly alleged coercion based on Vullo's broad regulatory and enforcement powers over entities like Lloyd's of London, her alleged statements pressuring Lloyd's and other insurance entities to cut ties with the NRA and other gun-promotion groups in exchange for leniency on unrelated infractions, and how those entities reacted to that pressure. Although Vullo was entitled to enforce state insurance law, she could not leverage that power to stifle the NRA's advocacy. At this preliminary (motion to dismiss) stage of the case, a court must assume the NRA's factual allegations were true, so the Court rejected Vullo's arguments that she was engaged only in government speech and legitimate enforcement. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion to reiterate that the Court merely reaffirms a well-settled principle: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion to highlight the distinction between government coercion and a violation of the First Amendment—specifically that the fact of coercion, without more, does not state a First Amendment claim. 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

$8.8 trillion is the total combined assets of the nearly 3,000 financial institutions that are regulated and supervised by the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). In addition to navigating serious banking crises in recent years, DFS faces challenges on the horizon: artificial intelligence, cyber security, and cryptocurrency, to name a few. Joining the podcast is DFS Superintendent Adrienne Harris, who shares with us the important work state leadership is doing to ensure a strong and secure financial services sector, while navigating this rapidly changing landscape.

National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024 From the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: Bantam Books v. Sullivan held that a state commission with no formal regulatory power violated the First Amendment when it “deliberately set out to achieve the suppression of publications” through “informal sanctions,” including the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation.” Respondent here, wielding enormous regulatory power as the head of New York's Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), applied similar pressure tactics—including backchannel threats, ominous guidance letters, and selective enforcement of regulatory infractions—to induce banks and insurance companies to avoid doing business with Petitioner, a gun rights advocacy group. Respondent targeted Petitioner explicitly based on its Second Amendment advocacy, which DFS's official regulatory guidance deemed a “reputational risk” to any financial institution serving the NRA. The Second Circuit held such conduct permissible as a matter of law, reasoning that “this age of enhanced corporate social responsibility” justifies regulatory concern about “general backlash” against a customer's political speech. Question Presented: Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government's own hostility to the speaker's viewpoint or (b) a perceived "general backlash" against the speaker's advocacy? Resources: NRA v. Vullo docket Institute for Free Speech blog by Barnaby Zall - “Does the First Amendment Allow a Government Official to Make Threats Like a Mob Boss?” Time Stamps: (00:00:00) ACLU Legal Director David Cole, on behalf of the NRA (00:36:00) Ephraim McDowell, Assistant to the Solicitor General (00:48:00) Neal Kumar Katyal, Counsel of Record for Maria Vullo (01:12:00) Rebuttal by David Cole The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. Learn more on our website: ⁠www.ifs.org

Media coverage has intensified over an allegation by three independent insurance adjusters that Florida property insurance companies are cheating their policyholders out of rightful claim payouts.  The three accuse the industry of altering their field adjuster reports and reducing claim payouts – all without their knowledge or approval. Former Florida Deputy Insurance Commissioner Lisa Miller sat down with two independent field adjusters and an attorney who represents insurance companies to learn their perspective and just how damage claims – and their payouts – are ultimately decided and by whom.    Show Notes The three adjusters and their allegations first appeared in public last December to testify during the Florida Legislature's special session which resulted in a series of new consumer insurance reforms.  The reforms included the end of one-way attorney fees for property insurance lawsuits, the end of Assignment of Benefit contracts, and a further tightening of claim practices, among other things.  These were all abusive practices by bad actors against insurance companies and policyholders that were blamed for driving up the cost of insurance and creating market turmoil. (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/13875-2/)   Shawn Kelliher of Cape Coral is a 16-year veteran in the insurance adjusting business.  His first 13 years were working for Farmers Insurance Company as a desk adjuster and then as a catastrophe field adjuster, including large loss and complex claims across the country.  He said “it's absolutely not the case” that insurance companies are out to get everybody and explained that there are many legitimate reasons why field damage estimate reports change.   Field adjusters often don't know what damage is covered by the insurance policy.  “Some policies have actual cash value only coverage, some policies have specific exclusions for certain items and a lot of times we don't know that,” Kelliher said.  “So we see and document the damage and that goes in our report and that's sent up (to the independent adjusting firm or insurance company), only to be later found out that, unfortunately, in those circumstances where they (the policyholders) don't have coverage, those items have to be removed or taken out of the estimate.  And it's not a malicious situation,” the Naples, Florida native said.  Kelliher said he's seen it many times over the past three years that he's been an independent adjuster in Florida.  He said he works for a variety of adjusting firms and across a vast array of insurance carriers, doing both residential and commercial work.  Vanessa McGonigal, an independent field adjuster from Cooper City agrees.  Often times, she said she is not aware of any changes that may take place in the final adjusting report on a claim.  “If we're preparing an estimate for all of the damages we see and we submit that and coverage is not afforded for something written on our estimate, where is it that we should give permission to have that removed?  If it's not covered, it's not covered,” McGonigal said.  She began her career in 2009 as an estimator for a general contractor and then five years ago, became an independent field adjuster.  She said she has worked for a couple of independent insurance adjusting firms, doing both residential and commercial claims, including from Hurricane Ian.Both McGonigal and Kelliher said that if there is a change to the estimate, sometimes they make it, sometimes their adjustment firm does it, or the desk adjuster at the insurance company, depending on the change and the situation. “They'll call me and say, ‘Hey, you know, I read your report, I saw your photos, this is what I was thinking.  Can you kind of explain your thought process here or justify what it is that you put in your estimate?' and we'll have a conversation about it,” said Kelliher, who has worked “several hundred” Hurricane Ian claims.  “And ultimately, again, ultimately, it's the carrier's determination of coverage.  As independent adjusters, we have zero claims authority to extend coverage.  The adjustments that are being made, are to bring the estimate accurate, or in line with the policy or coverages as endorsed.”McGonigal outlined the steps she takes as a field adjuster from the time she is assigned the claim to delivering her report on damage.  She said her typical day could include handling up to 15 Hurricane Ian claims.  That doesn't leave a lot of time – nor should it – for follow-up, unless there's a question or a dispute about damages, the Hollywood native said.   Robert Schulte is an attorney with the Louisiana-based Monson Law Firm, working in its Florida office.  He has represented Florida insurance companies in homeowners and commercial insurance matters since 2012 and is skeptical of the three adjusters' allegations against the industry.  “In the weeks before their December testimony, there was a YouTube video featuring the same folks and if you look at the description of that YouTube channel, it says, “We're politically involved, where appropriate, to help consumers maintain the ability to hire professional and legal representation,” Schulte said.  “And so it should be no surprise that it seems like there's an agenda here and maybe there's a misunderstanding of what's going on.” The industry responded to the adjusters' allegations by saying what they described is not common practice and at least one investigation is underway by regulators.  The Florida Legislature responded this spring, in part, by passing Senate Bill 7052, which Governor DeSantis signed into law.  It requires that any altered or amended insurance adjuster's report include the following three elements: A listing of all the changes; The identity of the person ordering the change; and An explanation for any change that reduced the amount of the estimate. “I do think that what's happened here is some give and take by the legislature,” said Schulte.  “More transparency is part of what the new process is with the new laws.  Is it just right?  Is it too far?  Or is it not enough?  We just have to wait and see, while these things work their way through the legal system,” he said. Host Miller noted there is skepticism by some in the insurance marketplace, given that independent adjusters are independent contractors, who are often paid based on a percentage of the claim.  She asked both McGonigal and Kelliher if there is a built-in temptation by adjusters as a result to inflate the claim estimate.“I do believe that there could be some fellow 1099 field adjusters that think about that and do that, it is possible, yes,” said McGonigal.  “The answer is absolutely yes,” said Kelliher, who said that he's done re-inspections often for estimates that are almost rejected because of the way they were written.  “Some adjusters are unscrupulous enough to write for increased or padded damages that are just not supported.  So you know, just because the adjuster wrote an estimate that's $100,000 does not mean that $100,000 estimate is supported,” he said.   The bottom line?  “If the estimate was written inaccurately, by all means, it needs to be changed and adjusted to make it accurate, even if it does reduce that adjuster's estimate,” Kelliher said.Schulte went on to explain specific instances where the estimate of damages is reduced.  There are lots of moving parts to a property insurance claim with multiple interactions among multiple parties.  “I think that what would help people is to understand how it's not just one person that makes the decision, and that it's the insurance company that's making the decision,” Schulte said.   “The insurance company is putting together all of the pieces of the puzzle to arrive at a fair evaluation of the claim pursuant to the policy.”Host Miller reminded listeners that out of the more than 710,000 Hurricane Ian claims at last report, the number of those having problems with claim payments “according to the Department of Financial Services statistics is very, very small, less than 1% is the number that I'm hearing,” she said.  “Less than 20 or so questionable claims by these three adjusters are the recent focus of so much of the media's attention.  We're missing the forest for the trees,” Miller added.   She said the Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Helpline exists to help open communication lines and help resolve complaints that do exist between consumers and their insurance companies.  “As Florida's CFO Jimmy Patronis recently told a reporter, ‘There's two sides to every story.'”Links and Resources Mentioned in this EpisodeFlorida Adjusters' Charges of Doctored Damage Reports Get Wider Spotlight (Insurance Journal, March 13, 2023)Key Provisions of 2022 Insurance Consumer Protections & Market Reforms (Lisa Miller & Associates)SB 7052, the Insurer Accountability Law of 2023 (Bill Watch, May 8, 2023, Lisa Miller & Associates)HB 837, the Civil Remedies (Tort Reform) Law of 2023 (Bill Watch, May 8, 2023, Lisa Miller & Associates)Department of Financial Services (DFS) insurance consumer helpline (1-877-MY-FL-CFO)The Monson Law Firm** The Listener Call-In Line for your recorded questions and comments to air in future episodes is 850-388-8002 or you may send email to LisaMiller@LisaMillerAssociates.com **The Florida Insurance Roundup from Lisa Miller & Associates, brings you the latest developments in Property & Casualty, Healthcare, Workers' Compensation, and Surplus Lines insurance from around the Sunshine State.  Based in the state capital of Tallahassee, Lisa Miller & Associates provides its clients with focused, intelligent, and cost conscious solutions to their business development, government consulting, and public relations needs.  On the web at www.LisaMillerAssociates.com or call 850-222-1041.  Your questions, comments, and suggestions are welcome!  Date of Recording 6/1/2023. Email via info@LisaMillerAssociates.com   Composer: www.TeleDirections.com  © Copyright 2017-2023 Lisa Miller & Associates, All Rights Reserved 

In this episode I go over why I'm in for Discover Financial Services for the long term. Link to my socials & referrals https://linktr.ee/harris.elliot Email onepennyatatimepodcast@gmail.com Disclaimer: I am not a financial adviser. This podcast is for entertainment, inspiration, & educational purposes only. Investing of any kind involves risk. I am only sharing my opinion with no guarantee of gains or losses on investments.   Please consult an appropriate adviser and do your own research before making any investing decisions.  The data shared may be inaccurate.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/onepennyatatime/support

After reviewing the licensing/chartering/approval structures that DFS uses for entities seeking to engage in virtual currency activities, we discuss the role of guidance in DFS's regulation and oversight of virtual currency, particularly new DFS guidance on digital asset custody practices and DFS expectations for how entities acting as digital asset custodians can better protect customers in the event of an insolvency or similar proceeding. We also discuss feedback DFS has received from other regulators and industry, steps DFS takes to ensure accountability and compliance with its guidance, the role of industry engagement with DFS in compliance programs, DFS recruiting and training efforts, likely areas of focus for future DFS guidance, including the role of disclosures and suitability requirements, and DFS engagement with federal and state regulators in establishing uniform standards for regulation of virtual currency. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by Lisa Lanham, a partner in the Group.

Given New York's unique role in global finance, the state always has top notch regulators and is normally at the forefront in addressing market change. It's not surprising, then, that the state is focused today on the technology transformation underway in finance, including crypto. My two guests today are both leaders at the New York state Department of Financial Services – DFS. Kaitlin Asrow is Executive Deputy Superintendent of Research and Innovation. Peter Marton is Deputy Superintendent of Virtual Currency.

Why we recently trimmed Discover Financial Services (DFS) in the AMM Dividend Growth Strategy and a new risk that emerged from the increased stimulus and U.S. consumers with a lot of excess cash. AMM Books AMM Dividend Letter Vol. 1 AMM Dividend Letter Vol. 2 AMM Dividend Letter Vol. 3 Wisdom on Value Investing Fact Sheet AMM Dividend Growth Strategy Q1 2021 Learn more about American Money Management, LLC. www.amminvest.com Contact Glenn Busch (858) 755-0909 gbusch@amminvest.com Schedule a call with Glenn

Katie Neer is the Head of Industry Affairs at Lantern, an e-commerce marketplace that facilitates cannabis home delivery. Headquartered in Boston, MA, Lantern currently operates in Massachusetts, Michigan, and Colorado. Prior to joining Lantern, Katie was in private practice and gained in-house cannabis experience as the Director of Government Affairs at Acreage Holdings, a multi-state-operator. She was Chair of the New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association. Katie also previously served as Assistant Secretary for General Government and Financial Services in the New York State Governor's Office. At the Governor's office, Katie was a member of the state operations team overseeing policy and operations for six agencies: the Department of Financial Services (DFS); the State Insurance Fund; the Department of State; the Department of Tax and Finance; the Office of General Services; and the Gaming Commission. During her time in the Governor's Office, Katie was responsible for negotiating and overseeing the implementation of several key policy initiatives, including Paid Family Leave, Ride-Share, and the DFS's cybersecurity regulations. Katie was listed as an attorney on The Best Lawyers in America, “Ones to Watch,” List for Administrative and Regulatory law in 2021. In 2018, she was profiled as an Albany 40 Under 40 Rising Star. She also serves on the Board of Directors for the Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood in New York. A member of the New York State Bar, she received her J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law, her M.P.A. from Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, and her B.A. in political science from SUNY Albany, where she earned the 2009 SUNY Chancellor's Award of Excellence and played Division I Lacrosse. Help us grow! Leave us a rating and review - it's the best way to bring new listeners to the show. Don't forget to subscribe! Have a suggestion, or want to chat with Jim? Email him at Jim@ThePoliticalLife.net  Follow The Political Life on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter for weekly updates.

Adam Zurofsky currently serves as Founding Executive Director of Rewiring America, a non-profit dedicated to combatting climate change and spurring economic growth through the rapid and widespread electrification of the U.S. economy. As Executive Director, Adam sets RA’s strategic priorities, manages its policy development, partnership, and communications activities, and manages all day-to-day operations. Until mid-2019, Adam served as Director of State Policy and Agency Management for the State of New York where he led the development and implementation of all major policy initiatives for Governor Cuomo and was responsible for strategic management of the State’s executive agencies and authorities and their more than 150,000 employees. Prior to that, Adam served as Deputy Secretary for Energy and Finance for the State of New York where he directly oversaw all policy and regulatory aspects of New York State's energy, climate, and finance portfolios as well as the following State agencies and authorities: the Department of Public Service (DPS), the New York Power Authority (NYPA), the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), including its New York Green Bank, the Department of Financial Services (DFS), including its Banking, Insurance and Consumer Protection divisions, and the Department of Taxation and Finance, among others. Adam was responsible for leading implementation of Governor Cuomo's climate agenda, including establishing the U.S. Climate Alliance of 25 states committed to upholding the Paris Climate Accords and the decarbonization of the over $200 billion New York Common Retirement Fund. Before joining the Cuomo administration, Adam was a partner in the New York law firm of Cahill Gordon and Reindel, LLP, where he advised leading companies, financial institutions and their boards in a wide variety of regulatory, litigation and corporate governance matters. During his almost 18 years with Cahill, Adam also chaired the Firm’s associate development program and was recognized as one of the Top 10 Securities Lawyers under 40 in the nation. Adam currently teaches climate policy at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. He previously co-founded Fordham Law School’s Corporate Sustainability Initiative and has served as a member of Fordham’s Adjunct Faculty, teaching on issues such as corporate social responsibility and impact/ESG investing. He is a published author and a regular speaker at conferences on topics ranging from climate policy to clean energy finance to corporate social responsibility. Adam holds an A.B. with honors in Political Science from Stanford University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and a J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School. Adam was previously a member of The Brookings Institution's Leadership Council for Governance Studies as well as the Board of Directors of the Roundabout Theatre Company. He was also a founding Board member of Civics Unplugged. Adam lives in New York City with his wife and their three children. https://www.rewiringamerica.org/ https://www.rewiringamerica.org/household-savings-report Saul Griffith on the Green New Deal and the enormous opportunity in shooting for the moon https://nexuspmg.com/

$7.3 trillion is the total assets of the more than 3,000 insurance and financial institutions regulated by the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS). DFS Superintendent Linda Lacewell discusses DFS' critical role as a regulator.

Global banks are the poster children of sanctions violations and the importance of trade compliance. At the top of the heap is Standard Chartered Bank. In a long-awaited resolution of a multi-year investigation, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), the New York District Attorney's (DANY), the Federal Reserve, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) and the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced a number of settlement agreements in connection with SCB's violations of Iran Sanctions Programs. Under the agreements, SCB agreed with the: (1) Justice Department to forfeit $240 million, a fine of $480 million and to extend its existing deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) for an additional two years; (2) Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) to pay total penalties of $657 million; the Federal Reserve to pay penalties of $163 million; the New York Department of Financial Services to pay total penalties of $180 million; and the UK's Financial Conduct Authority to pay total penalties of $133 million; and (3) New York District Attorney's Office to pay a financial penalty of $292 million and extend its DPA with DA-NY for two years. The Justice Department agreed to credit a portion of these payments and reduced its fine for SCB from $480 million to $52 million, along with the $240 million forfeiture.   In this episode, Mike Volkov reviews the Standard Chartered Bank enforcement action and the implications of the action.  

In this episode: - The cryptocurrency market wipes more than $20B in a day - The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) grants a BitLicense to the New York Digital Investment Group (NYDIG) - Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, suggests that central banks should consider state-backed digital currencies

Discover Financial Services is one of the largest credit card issuers and payment processors in the world.  They create credit cards for consumers and also lend money in a variety of ways.  They also charge processing fees through their international PULSE network.

In March 2017, the New York Department for Financial Services (DFS) implemented a Cyber Security regulation, requiring financial institutions to establish a cyber security programme to protect consumer data. But how will this affect New York businesses and what measures should they put in place to meet these requirements? In this podcast, Steve Durbin, Managing Director of the ISF, addresses these questions and offers insights into how the ISF can help New York financial institutions put in place the mechanisms to comply with the NY DFS. For more information and to download the ISF mapping, visit our website here: https://www.securityforum.org/consultancy/compliance-with-y-regulation-dfs/

In March 2017, the New York Department for Financial Services (DFS) implemented a Cyber Security regulation, requiring financial institutions to establish a cyber security programme to protect consumer data. But how will this affect New York businesses and what measures should they put in place to meet these requirements? In this podcast, Steve Durbin, Managing Director of the ISF, addresses these questions and offers insights into how the ISF can help New York financial institutions put in place the mechanisms to comply with the NY DFS. For more information and to download the ISF mapping, visit our website here: https://www.securityforum.org/consultancy/compliance-with-y-regulation-dfs/