Podcasts about John Culhane

Our podcast show being released today is part 2 of a repurposed interactive webinar that we presented on March 24 featuring two of the leading journalists who cover the CFPB - Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg. Our show begins with Tom Burke, a Ballard Spahr consumer financial services litigator, describing in general terms the status of the 38 CFPB enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Rohit Chopra was terminated. The cases fall into four categories: (a) those which have already been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the CFPB; (b) those which the CFPB has notified the courts that it intends to continue to prosecute; (c) those in which the CFPB has sought a stay for a period of time in order for it to evaluate whether or not to continue to prosecute them where the stay has been granted by the courts; and (d) those in which the CFPB's motion for a stay has been denied by the courts or not yet acted upon. Alan Kaplinsky then gave a short report describing a number of bills introduced this term related to the CFPB. Alan remarked that the only legislative effort which might bear fruit for the Republicans is to attempt to add to the budget reconciliation bill a provision subjecting the CFPB to funding through Congressional appropriations. Such an effort would need to be approved by the Senate Parliamentarian. Finally, Alan expressed surprise that the Republicans, in seeking to shut down the CFPB, have not relied on the argument that the CFPB has been unlawfully funded by the Federal Reserve Board since September 2022 because there has been no “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” beginning then through the present. (Dodd-Frank stipulates that the CFPB may be funded only out of such “combined earnings”). For more information about that funding issue, listen to Alan's recent interview of Professor Hal Scott of Harvard Law School who has written prolifically about it. On Monday of this week, Professor Scott published his third op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which he concluded: “Since the bureau is operating illegally, the president can halt its work immediately by executive order. The order should declare that all work at the CFPB will stop, that all rules enacted since funding became illegal in September 2022 are void, and that no new rules will be enforced.” Joseph Schuster then briefly described what has been happening at other federal agencies with respect to consumer financial services matters. Joseph and Alan reported on the fact that President Trump recently fired without cause the two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission leaving only two Republican members on the Commission. He took that action despite an old Supreme Court case holding that the language in the FTC Act stating that the President may remove an FTC member only for cause does not run afoul of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution.  The two Democratic commissioners have sued the Administration for violating the FTC Act provision, stating that the President may only remove an FTC commissioner for cause. The President had previously fired Democratic members at the Merit Systems Selection Board and National Labor Relations Board. President Trump based his firings on the belief that the Supreme Court will overrule the old Supreme Court case on the basis that the “termination for cause” language in the relevant statutes is unconstitutional. After the recording of this webinar, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals stayed, by a 2-1 vote, a District Court order holding that Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the NLRB and Merit Systems Selection Board was unlawful. That order was subsequently overturned by the court of appeals acting en banc. Subsequently, Chief Justice Roberts stayed that order. In light of these developments, it seems unlikely that the two FTC commissioners will be reinstated, if at all, until the Supreme Court decides the case. Also, after the recording of this webinar, the Senate confirmed a third Republican to be an FTC commissioner. For those of you who want a deeper dive into post-election developments at federal agencies other than the CFPB, please register for our webinar titled “What Is Happening at the Federal Agencies (Other Than the CFPB) That is Relevant to the Consumer Financial Services Industry?” which will occur on May 13, 2025. Joseph then discussed developments at the FDIC where the FDIC withdrew the very controversial brokered deposits proposal, the 2023 corporate governance proposal, the Change-in-Bank- Control Act proposal and the incentive-based compensation proposal. He also reported that the FDIC rescinded its 2024 Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions and delayed the compliance date for certain provisions in the sign and advertising rule.  Joseph then discussed developments at the OCC where it (and the FDIC) announced that it would no longer use “reputation risk” as a basis for evaluating the safety and soundness of state-chartered banks that it supervises. The OCC, also, conditionally approved a charter for a Fintech business model to be a national bank and withdrew statements relating to crypto currency risk. Finally, Joseph discussed how state AGs and departments of banking have significantly ramped up their enforcement activities in response to what is happening at the CFPB. The podcast ended with each participant expressing his view on what the CFPB will look like when the dust settles. The broad consensus is that the CFPB will continue to operate with a greatly reduced staff and will only perform duties that are statutorily required. It is anticipated that there will be very little rulemaking except for rules that the CFPB is required to issue - namely, the small business data collection rule under 1071 of Dodd-Frank and the open banking rule under 1033 of Dodd-Frank. The panel also felt that the number of enforcement lawsuits and investigations will measurably decline with the focus being on companies engaged in blatant fraud or violations of the Military Lending Act. This podcast show was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years and now senior counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group. If you missed part 1 of our repurposed webinar produced on March 24, click here for a blog describing its content and a link to the podcast itself. In short, part 1 featured Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg, who chronicle the initiatives of CFPB Acting Directors Scott Bessent and Russell Vought and DOGE to dismantle the CFPB and the status of the two lawsuits brought to enjoin those initiatives. Ballard Spahr partners John Culhane and Rich Andreano give a status report on the effort of Acting Director Vought to nullify most of the final and proposed rules and other written guidance issued by Rohit Chopra. The podcast concludes with John and Rich describing the fact that supervision and examinations of banks and non-banks is non-existent.

Our podcast show being released today is Part 1 of a repurposed interactive webinar that we presented on March 24, featuring two of the leading journalists who cover the CFPB - Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg. Our show began with Jon and Evan chronicling the initiatives beginning on February 3 by CFPB Acting Directors Scott Bessent, Russell Vought and DOGE to shut down or at least minimize the CFPB. These initiatives were met with two federal district court lawsuits (one in DC brought by the labor unions who represents CFPB employees who were terminated and the other brought in Baltimore, MD by the CFPB and others) challenging one or more of these initiatives. Jon and Evan described the lawsuits in detail. While the Baltimore lawsuit was dismissed on the basis of lack of ripeness under the Administrative Procedure Act, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a TRO freezing the CFPB from terminating more CFPB employees through the end of March while she decides whether to enter a further injunction with respect to the CFPB's initiatives. Ballard Spahr partners, Rich Andreano and John Culhane, then gave an up-to-date status report on CFPB (a) final rules being challenged in litigation and/or eligible to be challenged under the Congressional Review Act; (b) final rules not being challenged in litigation which may be repealed or amended or whose effective or compliance dates may be extended under the Administrative Procedure Act; (c) proposed rules; and (d) non-rule written guidance. Rich and John paid particular attention to the following final rules: 1.  The Small Business Loan Data Collection and Reporting Rule under Section 1071 of      Dodd-Frank 2.  The Non-bank enforcement order Registry Rule 3.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act “Data Broker” Rule 4.  The Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing Rule 5.  The Residential Mortgage Servicing Proposed Rule 6.  Credit Card Penalty fees under Reg Z (Late Fee Rule) 7. Personal Financial Data Rights (Open Banking) Rule under Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank 8.  Overdraft Lending Rule Applicable to very large financial institutions 9. Prohibition on creditors and consumer reporting agencies reporting medical debt under Reg V Part 1 of our podcast concludes with Rich and John describing the fact that supervision and examination of banks and non-banks is apparently on hold. This podcast show was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel.

Our podcast show today features John Culhane and Mike Kilgarriff, partners in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services group. They discuss what supervision and enforcement will look like under a new acting director/director appointed by President Trump. This episode is a repurposing of the second half of a webinar that was produced on January 6. On January 23, we released the first half of the webinar, which consisted of Alan Kaplinsky's “fireside chat” with Kathy Kraninger, the former Director of the CFPB during Trump 1.0., linked here. With respect to supervision, we consider, among others, the following issues with respect to the CFPB's leadership under Trump 2.0: (a) Will it be business as usual or more relaxed? (b) Will it focus on compliance with the Federal consumer financial services laws and less on UDAAP? (c) Will there be reduced staffing and fewer exams? (d) Will there be fewer PAAR letters and more use of MRAS and MRIAs? With respect to enforcement, we consider, among others, the following issues with respect to the CFPB's leadership under Trump 2.0: (a) Will there be an exhaustive review of all existing investigations and lawsuits and a dismissal of those which involve “regulation by enforcement” or “pushing the envelope”? (b) Will they focus more on fraud and scams and less on UDAAP? (c) What position will they take on whether the CFPB has been unlawfully funded because the Federal Reserve Banks have had no combined earnings since September 2022? 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 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.

In today's episode, we discuss the CFPB's recent proposed data broker rule—a proposal that would greatly expand the reach of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On December 3, the CFPB issued a proposed rule promoted as one that would require companies that sell data about income or financial tier, credit history, credit score or debt payments to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The proposal would make it clear that when data brokers sell certain sensitive consumer information, they are “consumer reporting agencies” under the FCRA. That would require them to comply with accuracy requirements. It also would require them to provide consumers access to their information. However, the proposal is much broader than a data broker rule, and the podcast explores the significant breadth of the proposal. The rule might face an uncertain future, since it was issued by current CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and pushes beyond the boundaries of the FCRA. Chopra's aggressive regulatory regime is opposed by the Trump Administration. Joining us today is Dan Smith, president and CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association, which represents the consumer data reporting industry. The host of the discussion is Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years, and now senior counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr. Joining the discussion are two Ballard Spahr partners: Richard Andreano, the practice leader of our mortgage banking group at Ballard Spahr and John Culhane. In this episode, we will discuss the key aspects of the landmark proposed rule, such as: 1.    The proposal being much broader than one addressing the sale of personal information to various parties, including stalkers, spies and scammers.  2.    The fact that the proposal does not even define what is a data broker.  3.    How the proposal would significantly change the concept of what constitutes a consumer report, including the proposal to treat credit header information as a consumer report.  4.    How the proposal would change the concept of what constitutes a consumer reporting agency.  5.    Requirements that the proposal would add to the written authorization permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report, including requirements regarding revocation of the authorization.  6.    How the proposal would modify the requirements to rely on the legitimate business need permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report.  7.    Whether the CFPB actually has legal authority to essentially rewrite the FCRA.

Today's podcast episode is part two of our December 16th webinar, where we discussed the impact of the election on CFPB rulemaking. Part one consisted of a “fireside chat” with David Silberman, who held several senior-level positions at the CFPB for almost ten years under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In part two, Ballard Spahr partners John Culhane and Joseph Schuster address the following questions: 1.      What will happen to CFPB regulations issued before January 20, such as the CFPB's credit card late fee rule, which is currently being challenged in a Texas federal court? 2.      What will happen to proposed regulations that may still be finalized before January 20, such as the interpretive rule on earned wage access plans and the proposed contract clause registry? 3.      What will happen to other written guidance from the CFPB, such as the circular on unenforceable contract terms and the advisory opinion on requests for information under Section 1034(c) of Dodd-Frank?  4.      What will be the impact of the Congressional Review Act? 5.      What will be the impact of litigation challenges? 6.      What will rulemaking look like under the new Director? 7.      What will be the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises which repealed the Chevron judicial deference doctrine? Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Ballard Spahr's 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.

Today's podcast episode is a re-purposing of a webinar we recorded on November 12, 2024. Our special guests for that webinar were Colin Carr, Vice-President of Congressional affairs at the Consumer Bankers Association and Ian Katz, Managing Director at Capital Alpha Partners. John Culhane, a partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group at our firm. The webinar begins with Colin giving us an overview of President-Elect Trump's victory and the Senate and House elections which resulted in the Republicans achieving close majorities in both chambers. As a result, the Republicans may not have too much difficulty in confirming Trump nominees for various positions and may also be able to override final rules published in the Federal Register by the CFPB and other agencies after August 1 of this year under the Congressional Review Act. (This includes the so-called “open banking” rule pertaining to consumer control of their records at banks under Section 133 of Dodd-Frank. Ian then addresses certain leadership changes at the CFPB, FDIC, OCC, FRB and FTC and the possibility of Trump using recess appointments to nominate the leaders of those agencies. John Culhane then takes a deep dive into the current status and expected outcome of agency regulations (both legislative and interpretive), proposed regulations and other written but less formal guidance and circulars. This includes the CFPB's $8. credit card late fee rule, the small business data collection rule under Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, the Buy-Now, Pay-Later interpretive rule, “open banking “ rule, and the changes to the UDAAP Exam Manual which described any form of discrimination as being an unfair trade practice, all of which are the subject of pending litigation. We also discuss the FTC's “CARS” rule and the “Click to Cancel” rule, which are also subject to pending litigation. Finally, we discussed the FDIC's “brokered deposits” rule. We explain how final legislative rules can only be overturned or modified through Congressional Review Act override (if they were adopted after August 1, 2024) or by proposing a repeal or modification under the Administrative Procedure Act (which is the same lengthy procedure utilized to promulgate the regulation) or by a final judgment of a court invalidating the rule. We also discuss whether the new CFPB Director may concede that the CFPB has been unlawfully funded under Dodd-Frank since the FRB may only fund the CFPB out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and because there have been no such combined earnings since September, 2022. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr hosts the episode.  

Today's podcast, which repurposes a recent webinar, is the conclusion of a two-part examination of the CFPB's use of a proposed interpretive rule, rather than a legislative rule, to expand regulatory requirements for earned wage access (EWA) products. Part One, which was released last week, focused on the CFPB's use of an interpretive rule to expand regulatory requirements for buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) products. We open with a discussion of EWA products, briefly describing and distinguishing direct-to-consumer EWAs and employer-based EWAS. We review some of the consumer-friendly features that are common to EWAs, including that there is no interest charged and they are typically non-recourse, and discuss expedited funding fees and tips, neither of which is required to access EWAs. We also provide an overview of how some states have attempted to regulate (or specifically not regulate) EWAs. We then transition into a discussion of the CFPB's history with EWA products, including the Bureau's advisory opinion in 2020 that took a markedly different approach to EWAs, essentially taking the position that a certain subset of EWAs fell outside of the definition of “credit” under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. The CFPB's proposed interpretive rule, on the other hand, states that EWAs are “credit” and that expedited funding fees and optional tips, in most circumstances, are part of the finance charge that must be disclosed under TILA and Regulation Z. We explore the Bureau's reasoning in support of these conclusions and some of the compliance difficulties that the proposed interpretive rule would create were it to go into effect as written. Since this recording took place, the CFPB has posted over 148,000 comment letters that it has received on the proposed interpretive rule, many of which are from consumers who use EWAs to access a portion of their earned wages prior to their scheduled payday and are concerned that the proposed interpretive rule could limit or jeopardize their access to EWAs. The high number of responses demonstrates the level of interest that the CFPB's proposed interpretive rule has generated. We conclude with thoughts about vulnerabilities with both the proposed interpretive rule for EWAs and the interpretive rule for BNPLs that we described in Part One of this podcast, as well as how these rules could potentially be challenged. One notable development that has occurred since our recording is that the Financial Technology Association has filed a complaint asking a D.C. federal court to strike down the interpretive rule for BNPLs because of the alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act that we discuss in this episode. Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by John Culhane and Michael Guerrero, Partners in the Group, and John Kimble, Of Counsel in the Group.

Today's podcast, which repurposes a recent webinar, is the first in a two-part examination of the CFPB's use of an interpretive rule, rather than a legislative rule, to expand regulatory requirements for buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) products. Part Two, which will be available next week, will focus on the CFPB's use of a proposed interpretive rule to expand regulatory requirements for earned wage access (EWA) products. We open with an overview of what interpretive rules are and how they differ procedurally and substantively from legislative rules. The intended use of interpretive rules is to explain the meaning of an existing provision of law, while legislative rules, which require a more complicated and time-consuming procedure, including a notice and comment period under the Administrative Procedures Act, are intended to be used to expand or implement a provision of law. We also discuss why the CFPB chose to use an interpretive rule and why they decided to include a request for comments when that is not required for interpretive rules. We then discuss BNPL products, including how they work and some of the features that have made them popular with consumers and merchants. We point out that the interpretive rule seems to represent a change in the views of the CFPB with regard to BNPL. After providing an overview of the CFPB's history with the product, including a report issued by the Bureau back in 2022, we delve into the details of the CFPB's interpretive rule. We discuss how the CFPB seems to be expanding the definition of a “credit card” to include what the Bureau calls a “digital user account,” which is how consumers access their BNPL information. We conclude with thoughts about the implications of the CFPB's interpretive rule and some of the difficulties that BNPL providers will have complying with the interpretive rule. This includes a discussion of the timing of billing statements and written notice requirements for billing error disputes and merchant disputes. Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by John Culhane, Michael Guerrero, and Joseph Schuster, Partners in the Group. The webinar was recorded before the CFPB issued an FAQ, which purports to answer a number of open questions raised by the BNPL interpretive rule. We recommend that you review the FAQ after listening to this podcast.  

In this episode, we spotlight editorials and abstracts from the Journal of Vascular Surgery Cases, Innovates, and Techniques (JVS-CIT). Editorials and Abstracts are read by members of the SVS Social Media Ambassadors.   Readers: David Ebertz (@EbertzDavid) Kori Snider (@KoriSnider) Nabeeha Khan (@Nabeeha_Khan_)   Hosts: John Culhane (@Johnculhanemd) Nishi Vootukuru (@Nishi_Vootukuru)   Reference Articles: Sutureless endovascular bypass technique in long femoropopliteal occlusions Technical feasibility and device stability of the Gore Excluder iliac branch endoprosthesis as abdominal aortic bifurcated device Retrograde aortic dissection during thoracic endovascular aortic repair: How to prevent and treat Retroperitoneal approach for ilio-superior mesenteric artery bypass: Technique and case series Randomized controlled trials in emergency settings: Taking a HEADSTART on acute type A aortic dissection trials Presentation and management of true aneurysms of the pancreaticoduodenal arcade with concomitant celiac artery stenosis using the endovascular approach Regarding “Aortic rupture during STABILISE (stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination in aortic dissection repair) technique” Temporary mesenteric venous shunting for portal vein reconstruction: A novel technical adjunct   Follow us @audiblebleeding   Learn more about us at https://www.audiblebleeding.com/about-1/ and provide us with your feedback with our listener survey. *Gore is a financial sponsor of this podcast, which has been independently developed by the presenters and does not constitute medical advice from Gore. Always consult the Instructions for Use (IFU) prior to using any medical device.  

On June 28, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, et al., the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, a long-standing tenet of administrative law established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine directed courts to defer to a government agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutory language as long as the interpretation was reasonable. However, legal scholars now express widely divergent views as to the scope and likely effects of Loper Bright's overruling of the Chevron doctrine on the future course of regulatory agency interpretive and enforcement authority. In this two-part episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, a panel of experts delves into the Loper Bright decision, and its underpinnings, rationale, and likely fallout. Our podcast features moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group; Ballard Spahr Partners Richard Andreano, Jr. and John Culhane, Jr.; and special guests Craig Green, Charles Klein Professor of Law and Government at Temple University Beasley School of Law, and Kent Barnett, recently appointed Dean of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University. Part II opens with an in-depth discussion of the major questions doctrine (which bars agencies from resolving questions of great economic and political significance without clear statutory authority), how it has evolved, and its interaction with Chevron deference. Our experts offer predictions as to the likely role of the major questions doctrine in post-Chevron jurisprudence, and touch on the non-delegation doctrine (which prevents Congress from delegating legislative power). We also refer to the effects of another recent Supreme Court decision, Corner Post, Inc. v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which expands the time during which entities new to an industry may challenge longstanding agency rules. We then consider the practical effects of the Loper Bright and Corner Post decisions on pending and future litigation. Partners Richard Andreano and John Culhane discuss concrete examples of cases currently progressing through the courts that already are evidencing the effects of Loper Bright, and ways in which arguments now are being articulated or might be articulated in litigation challenging a number of regulatory rules and interpretations in the absence of Chevron deference. We proceed to explore other significant topics including the validity of prior decisions of the Supreme Court and lower courts that were based exclusively on the Chevron doctrine. Our panel then opines on whether Loper Bright, both in its entirety and as to certain of its specific constituent elements, is “good” or “bad” for the consumer financial services industry and for regulated entities in general. In conclusion, Mr. Andreano cites concerns about how courts may apply alternative deference guidance that remains in place (including Skidmore deference, discussed in Part I of this podcast), and Mr. Culhane expresses hope that the outcome in Loper Bright might move agencies to engage in more thorough, thoughtful, and precise analysis in the rulemaking process.

On June 28, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, et al., the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, a long-standing tenet of administrative law established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine directed courts to defer to a government agency's interpretation of a statute if the statute was ambiguous regarding, or simply did not address, the issue before the court, as long as the interpretation was reasonable. However, legal scholars now express widely divergent views as to the scope and likely effects of Loper Bright's overruling of the Chevron doctrine on the future course of regulatory agency interpretive and enforcement authority. In this two-part episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, a panel of experts delves into the Loper Bright decision, and its underpinnings, rationale, and likely fallout. Our podcast features moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group; Ballard Spahr Partners Richard Andreano, Jr. and John Culhane, Jr.; and special guests Craig Green, Charles Klein Professor of Law and Government at Temple University Beasley School of Law, and Kent Barnett, recently appointed Dean of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University. In Part I, we first review the history of judicial deference to agency interpretations in American courts throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, culminating in the advent of Chevron deference.  We then discuss post-Chevron developments, including shifts in judicial and political views of the role courts should play in interpretation of agency action. Then, we turn to an in-depth discussion of the majority opinion in Loper Bright, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, including its reliance on the Administrative Procedure Act to invalidate Chevron deference and the opinion's numerous ambiguities that result in a “very, very fuzzy” outcome, leaving regulated industries facing uncertainty as to whether or not courts will uphold agency rules. We then explore other topics including the majority opinion's endorsement of an approach courts should take to review agency actions as described in a 1940's case, Skidmore v. Swift & Co.; what deference may or may not be given to agency policy-making and fact-finding in light of Loper Bright; and the divergent views of some legal scholars who suggest that many courts will continue to give broad deference to agency views notwithstanding Loper Bright.

The CFPB recently issued yet another final rule the agency says will help deter violations of consumer protection laws. This rule requires certain nonbank entities to register with the CFPB upon becoming subject to any order from local, state, or federal agencies or courts involving consumer protection law violations. The registry rule applies to any supervised or non-supervised nonbank that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service and any of its service provider affiliates unless excluded. The CFPB will require the nonbank entities that are subject to the rule to register the specific terms and conditions on an annual basis. There will be public access to this database. We also address the CFPB's recent circular in which the agency stated that certain terms in consumer financial product or service contracts may constitute violations of consumer protection law. Notably, the circular states that the use of prefatory language that often appears in consumer contracts—such as “subject to applicable law” or “to the extent permitted by law”—will not immunize contract language from being deceptive. We explain why practically every consumer contract in use today technically violates the CFPB circular. We also explain how we are helping several clients review and revise their consumer contracts to comply with the circular. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, and is joined by John Culhane, Richard Andreano, Joseph Schuster, and Reid Herlihy, partners in the Group.

The 1978 landmark opinion in Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp held that under the National Bank Act, a national bank has the right to export the interest rate authorized by the state where the bank is located to borrowers located elsewhere. Section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 ("DIDMCA") conferred equivalent rate exportation powers on state-chartered, FDIC-insured banks. These interest rate exportation powers (which also extend to certain fees), coupled with technological advances in recent years and the advent of “bank-model” and “banking as a service” (BaaS) programs, have created a robust, competitive smorgasbord of credit products for consumers. However, rate exportation, and the programs it enables, increasingly are subject to challenges from a variety of sources. In this two-part episode, which repurposes portions of a recent webinar, we describe the nature of these attacks, the defenses being deployed by the industry, and who is winning these contests so far, and address what the future may hold for rate exportation. We start Part II with a discussion of states that have adopted, or are considering, “true lender” statutes that aim to recharacterize fintechs and other bank service providers as lenders, thus defeating the originating bank's ability to export rates and fees. We then discuss “true lender” enforcement actions and efforts by state attorneys general, and “true lender” litigation developments including cases where arbitration clauses have been upheld, causing arbitration to be ordered in putative class actions. Next, we talk about attacks on the “valid when made” doctrine (which provides that a loan that was non-usurious when it was made doesn't become usurious after it is transferred to a third party), and “valid when made” regulations adopted by both the OCC and FDIC. We proceed with some tips on how prevailing industry plaintiffs who seek to overturn statutes inimical to rate exportation might recover attorney's fees. We then conclude with a review of recent and pending Supreme Court cases whose outcomes have the potential to affect rate exportation powers and related regulations.   Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates episode, joined by John Culhane, Joseph Schuster, and Ronald Vaske, Partners in the Group, and Mindy Harris and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CFPB's funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This two-part episode repurposes a recent webinar. In Part II, we first discuss the CFPB's launch of Fair Credit Reporting Act rulemaking, proposed rule to supervise larger payment providers, proposed rule on personal financial data rights, and interpretive rule on buy-now-pay-later.  We next discuss the operation of the Congressional Review Act and its potential impact on final CFPB rules if the November 2024 election results in a change in Administrations. We then discuss the impact of the SCOTUS decision on pending CFPB enforcement actions, the expected proliferation of new CFPB investigations and enforcement actions, and the CFPB's announced hiring binge. We conclude by sharing our thoughts on what companies can do to prepare for an uptick in CFPB activity and how the CFPB's increased staffing is likely to impact which companies will be targeted. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion joined by John Culhane and Joseph Schuster, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CFPB's funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This two-part episode repurposes a recent webinar. In Part I, we first discuss the SCOTUS decision, the status of the CFPB's payday lending rule that was at issue in the underlying case, and a potential new challenge to the CFPB's funding that has been the focus of recent attention. We then discuss four cases still pending before SCOTUS in which the decisions could impact the CFPB. Next, we discuss the pending lawsuits challenging the CFPB's final rules on credit card late fees and small business data collection and the changes to the CFPB's UDAAP exam manual defining “unfairness” to include discrimination, including the background of those cases, their current status, and the non-constitutional legal challenges made by the plaintiffs in those cases. We conclude with a discussion of final and proposed CFPB rules expected to be issued soon and potential non-constitutional legal challenges to those rules. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion joined by John Culhane, Richard Andreano, and Joseph Schuster, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

In this episode, Sasank Kalipatnapu (@ksasank), John Culhane and Leana Dogbe (@ldogbe4) sit down along with Dr. Dalman (@RLDalmanMD) as chair of the SVS Nominating Committee for this year, along with the two vice presidential candidates Dr. Harris and Dr Shaw to learn more about them as part of the ongoing election process.    Show links: SVS 2024 Meet the VP Candidates—Home Page—provides a comprehensive overview of all the candidates. Their professional biographies and answers to questions about their plans for the future are available in both text and video formats.   Show Guests: Dr. Linda Harris, Professor of Surgery at Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Buffalo, NY Dr. Palma Shaw, Professor of Surgery at State University of New York, Syracuse, NY Dr. Ronald L. Dalman, Elsa R. and Walter C. Chidester Professor and Division Chief Emeritus of Vascular Surgery at Stanford University, CA, Associate Dean for Market Development and Outreach for Stanford Medicine and Vice Chair for Clinical Affairs in the Department of Surgery    Follow us @audiblebleeding Learn more about us at https://www.audiblebleeding.com/about-1/ and provide us with your feedback with our listener survey.

Our special guest is Andrew Nigrinis of Legal Economics LLC and former CFPB enforcement economist. The CFPB's final credit card late fee rule lowers the safe harbor late fee amount that card issuers other than “smaller card issuers” can charge to $8. We first discuss how the final rule differs from the proposed rule and the existing rule, who are “smaller issuers” not subject to the lower safe harbor amount, and the changes made by the final rule for larger issuers. We then look at issuers' ability to determine late fees based on their costs, permissible fees other than late fees, the CFPB's economic analysis underlying the final rule, and the final rule's likely impact on issuers and cardholders. We conclude with a discussion of the Texas lawsuit challenging the final rule and the key arguments for invalidating the rule. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, joined by John Culhane and Ronald Vaske, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

Our special guest is David Pommerehn, SVP, General Counsel, Head of Regulatory Affairs at the Consumer Bankers Association. In January 2024, the CFPB proposed two new rules: one restricting overdraft fees and the other prohibiting NSF fees on certain declined transactions. The proposals are among the CFPB's latest moves in furtherance of the Biden Administration's “junk fees” agenda. In this episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, we discuss the key provisions of each proposal and entities covered, the CFPB's justification for each proposal, the legal authority relied on by the CFPB for each proposal, business practices impacted by the proposals, and potential legal challenges. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion, joined by John Culhane, a Partner in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

Our special guest is Malini Mithal, Associate Director of the FTC's Division of Financial Practices. In this episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, we review highlights of FTC regulatory and enforcement activity in 2023 directed at protecting consumers and small businesses and discuss what to expect from the FTC in 2024 and beyond. After reviewing the FTC's authority, we discuss important consent orders and enforcement litigation involving: alternate financing mechanisms such as cash advance apps and income share agreements; discriminatory financing and other practices, including the FTC's use of unfairness; small business financing such as merchant cash advances; telemarketing practices; crypocurrency; and use of dark patterns. Throughout this discussion, Ms. Mithal offers compliance tips and takeaways from the consent orders and enforcement litigation. We also look at the FTC's final CARS rule, proposed junk fees rule, and artificial intelligence-related initiatives. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, joined by John Culhane, a partner in the Group.

Our special guest is Richard (“Rick”) Hackett, former Assistant CFPB Director responsible for auto finance regulation and presently a member of the Board of F&I Sentinel, which supports lender compliance in the auto finance and insurance industry. In December 2023, the FTC announced its final Combatting Auto Retail Scams Rule, otherwise known as the “CARS Rule,” which sets new requirements on the sale, financing, and leasing of new and used vehicles by motor vehicle dealers. This two-part podcast episode repurposes a recent webinar. In Part II, we begin with a discussion of how the Rule impacts the sale of add-on products. We then discuss the Rule's impact beyond motor vehicle dealers covered by the Rule and the Rule's intersection with other laws and regulations, including state law and the FTC's Used Car Rule and Proposed Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees. We conclude with a discussion of best practices for auto sales finance companies to help navigate the Rule's new requirements. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion, joined by John Culhane and Michael Guerrero, Partners in the Group, and Brian Turetsky, Of Counsel in the Group.

Our special guest is Richard (“Rick”) Hackett, former Assistant CFPB Director responsible for auto finance regulation and presently a member of the Board of F&I Sentinel, which supports lender compliance in the auto finance and insurance industry. In December 2023, the FTC announced its Combatting Auto Retail Scams Rule, otherwise known as the “CARS Rule,” which sets new requirements on the sale, financing, and leasing of new and used vehicles by motor vehicle dealers. This two-part podcast episode repurposes a recent webinar. In Part I, we begin with a discussion of the legal challenge filed by the National Automobile Dealers Association seeking judicial review of the CARS Rule, the FTC's postponement of the Rule's effective date, and potential legislative challenges to the Rule. We then discuss the Rule's scope and key definitions, the misrepresentations that are expressly prohibited under the Rule, and the Rule's new disclosure requirements on dealer advertising and sales communications. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion, joined by John Culhane and Michael Guerrero, Partners in the Group, and Brian Turetsky, Of Counsel in the Group.

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.

This two-part podcast repurposes our most recent webinar on the latest salvo of actions in the Biden Administration's initiative directed at combatting so-called “junk fees.” Launched in January 2022, the initiative shows no signs of abating. In Part II, we first look at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's advisory opinion on fees charged by large banks and credit unions to respond to information requests, including the Bureau's discussion of non-fee obstacles such as chatbots that could unlawfully impede consumers' ability to make an information request. We then discuss the CFPB's second edition of Supervisory Highlights focused on “junk fees,” taking a close look at the CFPB's findings regarding deposit account fees, auto servicing fees, and remittance transfer fees and its discussion of the CFPB's circular on reopening closed deposit accounts, a remedial action against an auto servicer, and risks in connection with payment processing platforms for student meal accounts. We also discuss CFPB “junk fees” enforcement actions involving NSF fees, fees for add-on products charged by an installment loan lender, and refinancing costs imposed by a high-cost installment lender, as well as state law activity in California and elsewhere related to “junk fees.” We conclude with a discussion of potential future CFPB rulemaking and other actions involving “junk fees,” steps providers should consider to reduce “junk fees” compliance risk, and the preemptive effect on state law of an FTC “junk fees” rule. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion, joined by John Culhane and Reid Herlihy, Partners in the Group, Michael Gordon and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group, and Roger Winston, a Partner in the firm and Leader of its Mixed-Use, Condominium, and Multifamily Development Team.

This two-part podcast repurposes our most recent webinar on the latest salvo of actions in the Biden Administration's initiative directed at combatting so-called “junk fees.” Launched in January 2022, the initiative shows no signs of abating. In Part I, we first review the background of the initiative, the range of fees the Administration has labeled “junk fees,” and discuss the Administration's focus on competition and its related guidance and directives to federal agencies. We then take a close look at the Federal Trade Commission's proposed rule to regulate “junk fees,” including the rationale for the FTC's decision to engage in rulemaking, the price and fee disclosures that would be required by the proposal, and how an FTC “junk fees” rule could be used in support of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau actions targeting “junk fees.” We conclude with a discussion of the impact of the Administration's initiative and FTC proposal on “junk fees” related to rental housing. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion, joined by John Culhane and Reid Herlihy, Partners in the Group, Michael Gordon and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group, and Roger Winston, a Partner in the firm and Leader of its Mixed-Use, Condominium, and Multifamily Development Team.

The CFPB's final rule implementing Section 1071 requires financial institutions to collect and report certain data in connection with credit applications made by small businesses, including women-, minority- or LGBTQI+-owned small businesses. In this episode, we respond to questions received from attendees of our April 2023 attendance-breaking webinar about the final rule. The issues our responses address include: what is a “covered transaction” and distinguishing business/consumer purpose transactions; determining the applicable compliance date, applying the “grace period,” and pre-compliance date data collection; which originations must be reported, which are excluded, who has reporting obligations in multiple party transactions such as indirect auto loans, and identifying who is a small business; reliance on broker-collected data and data collection when small business status is uncertain; complying with data segregation and “firewall” requirements; reporting issues for securities-backed loans; CFPB identification/treatment of underperforming originators; and data to be publicly disclosed and CFPB approach to data analysis. We also discuss the preliminary injunction issued by a Texas federal court staying the rule's compliance dates for the plaintiffs only and how other entities subject to the rule have reacted. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion joined by John Culhane and Richard Andreano, partners in the Group, and Loran Kilson and Kaley Schafer, associates in the Group.

The Biden Administration has launched an initiative directed at combatting so-called “junk fees,” with the CFPB and FTC leading the Administration's efforts. In Part II of this two-part episode, we first look at CFPB supervisory activity relating to auto servicing, mortgage servicing, payday and small dollar loans, and student loan servicing. We then discuss likely CFPB next steps relating to its credit card late fees proposal and potential future actions by the CFPB, FTC, and state regulators to address “junk fees.” We conclude with a discussion of steps providers should consider to reduce compliance risks, including the Ballard Spahr Analytical Framework for identifying fees that the CFPB will not like. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, joined by John Culhane, a partner in the Group, and Michael Gordon and Kristen Larson, both Of Counsel in the Group.

The Biden Administration has launched an initiative directed at combatting so-called “junk fees,” with the CFPB and FTC leading the Administration's efforts. In Part I of this two-part episode, we first discuss the various definitions offered by the White House, CFPB, and FTC for what constitutes a “junk fee” and the types of fees they have labeled “junk fees.” We then discuss the CFPB's credit card late fees proposal and criticisms of the proposal set forth in comment letters. We conclude with a discussion of guidance on overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees issued by the CFPB, OCC, and FDIC and by state regulators and CFPB enforcement activity related to overdraft and NSF fees. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, joined by John Culhane, a partner in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

In celebration of Pride month, we're bringing you some extra episodes of the Outward podcast. This week, host Bryan Lowder talks to Slate contributor John Culhane about his new book More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality. In the book, Culhane explores legal arrangements other than marriage that could protect people's relationships and finances. While we might once have decried these options as consolation prizes, contracts such as designated beneficiary agreements offer exciting possibilities for queer and other nontraditional families. We'd love to hear about your Pride plans in this challenging year. Please send a voice memo, along with feedback, topic ideas, and advice questions to outwardpodcast@slate.com. Items discussed in the show: More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality, by John C. Culhane Gay Agenda John: Support your local drag performers. This podcast was produced by June Thomas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In celebration of Pride month, we're bringing you some extra episodes of the Outward podcast. This week, host Bryan Lowder talks to Slate contributor John Culhane about his new book More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality. In the book, Culhane explores legal arrangements other than marriage that could protect people's relationships and finances. While we might once have decried these options as consolation prizes, contracts such as designated beneficiary agreements offer exciting possibilities for queer and other nontraditional families. We'd love to hear about your Pride plans in this challenging year. Please send a voice memo, along with feedback, topic ideas, and advice questions to outwardpodcast@slate.com. Items discussed in the show: More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality, by John C. Culhane Gay Agenda John: Support your local drag performers. This podcast was produced by June Thomas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In celebration of Pride month, we're bringing you some extra episodes of the Outward podcast. This week, host Bryan Lowder talks to Slate contributor John Culhane about his new book More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality. In the book, Culhane explores legal arrangements other than marriage that could protect people's relationships and finances. While we might once have decried these options as consolation prizes, contracts such as designated beneficiary agreements offer exciting possibilities for queer and other nontraditional families. We'd love to hear about your Pride plans in this challenging year. Please send a voice memo, along with feedback, topic ideas, and advice questions to outwardpodcast@slate.com. Items discussed in the show: More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality, by John C. Culhane Gay Agenda John: Support your local drag performers. This podcast was produced by June Thomas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In celebration of Pride month, we're bringing you some extra episodes of the Outward podcast. This week, host Bryan Lowder talks to Slate contributor John Culhane about his new book More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality. In the book, Culhane explores legal arrangements other than marriage that could protect people's relationships and finances. While we might once have decried these options as consolation prizes, contracts such as designated beneficiary agreements offer exciting possibilities for queer and other nontraditional families. We'd love to hear about your Pride plans in this challenging year. Please send a voice memo, along with feedback, topic ideas, and advice questions to outwardpodcast@slate.com. Items discussed in the show: More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality, by John C. Culhane Gay Agenda John: Support your local drag performers. This podcast was produced by June Thomas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In celebration of Pride month, we're bringing you some extra episodes of the Outward podcast. This week, host Bryan Lowder talks to Slate contributor John Culhane about his new book More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality. In the book, Culhane explores legal arrangements other than marriage that could protect people's relationships and finances. While we might once have decried these options as consolation prizes, contracts such as designated beneficiary agreements offer exciting possibilities for queer and other nontraditional families. We'd love to hear about your Pride plans in this challenging year. Please send a voice memo, along with feedback, topic ideas, and advice questions to outwardpodcast@slate.com. Items discussed in the show: More Than Marriage: Forming Families After Marriage Equality, by John C. Culhane Gay Agenda John: Support your local drag performers. This podcast was produced by June Thomas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At the end of March 2023, the CFPB issued its long-awaited final rule to implement Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to collect and report certain data in connection with credit applications made by small businesses, including women- or minority-owned small businesses. Although the final rule will be effective on August 29, 2023, it contains a tiered compliance date schedule, with an earliest compliance date of October 1, 2024 for financial institutions that originate the most covered credit transactions and later compliance dates for institutions with lower transaction volumes. In Part I of this two-part episode, we first take a close look at the final rule's key definitions, specifically those for “covered application,” “covered financial institution,” “covered credit transaction,” and “small business.” We then discuss the data points that must be collected about the credit applied for, the borrower, and the borrower's principal owners and consider how the data points are similar to or different from the data points required to be collected pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. We conclude with a discussion of the rule's provisions regarding procedures for the collection of data, such as the restrictions on employee and officer access to data. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation, joined by John Culhane and Richard Andreano, Partners in the Group.

Third-party debt collectors, first-party creditors, and debt buyers face an ever-evolving federal and state regulatory landscape as well as ongoing private litigation. We first look at the impact of the CFPB's most recent rulemaking agenda on debt collectors. We then discuss compliance and licensing issues under District of Columbia, California, Utah, and New York debt collection laws and the Wyoming “debt buyer” licensing requirement. We conclude with a discussion of 2022 debt collection litigation statistics and state law developments related to the collection of student loans, including the California Student Loan Collections Reform Act. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation joined by Lisa Lanham and John Culhane, partners in the Group, and Abigail Pressler, Of Counsel in the Group.

In this episode, we dive deep into Fantasia, with a look at each segment, the reception by music critics, the soundtrack, centaurettes, and more!Talk to us here:Twitter: DreamMindHeartInstagram: DreamWithMindandHeartEmail: dreamwithmindandheart@gmail.comThanks also to Rosalie Kicks for our artwork and The Honey Badgers for our theme song!Primary Works Consulted:Wild Minds: The Artists and Rivalries that Inspired the Golden Age of Animation by Reid MitenbulerThe Queens of Animation: The Untold Story of the Women Who Transformed the World of Disney and Made Cinematic History by Nathalia Holt The Walt Disney Film Archives: The Animated Movies 1921-1968, edited by Daniel Kothenschulte Walt Disney: An American Original by Bob ThomasThe Disney Films (4th edition) by Leonard MaltinWalt Disney's Fantasia by John Culhane

The CFPB recently issued two proposals that would require nonbanks to register with and submit information to the CFPB for publication in an online, publicly available database. The proposals represent an aggressive attempt by the CFPB to enhance its supervisory and enforcement authorities and carry significant potential implications for nonbanks that would be required to register. In Part II, we look at the proposal that would require companies to register that “enter into covered form contracts,” meaning consumer contracts that use “covered terms or conditions” (regardless of legal validity or enforceability). After discussing the background of the registry and its relationship to the CFPB's final arbitration rule that was overturned by Congress, we look at which nonbanks would be required to register, what is a “covered form contract,” when does a company “enter into” such a contract, and what kinds of waivers or limitations are “covered terms or conditions.” We also look at the registration requirements and state level corollaries. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by Richard Andreano, Michael Gordon, John Culhane, and Lisa Lanham, partners in the Group.

The CFPB recently issued two proposals that would require nonbanks to register with and submit information to the CFPB for publication in an online, publicly available database. The proposals represent an aggressive attempt by the CFPB to enhance its supervisory and enforcement authorities and carry significant potential implications for nonbanks that would be required to register. In Part I, we look at the proposal that would require companies to register when, as a result of settlements or otherwise, they become subject to orders from local, state, or federal agencies and courts involving violations of consumer protection laws. After discussing the background and purpose of the registry and the Dodd-Frank Act authorities relied on by the CFPB for the proposal, we look at which nonbanks would be required to register, what is a “covered order” that would trigger registration, and the requirements for registration, recordkeeping, and annual attestation by an executive officer. We also look at state law requirements for licensed entities to disclose regulatory actions taken against them. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by Richard Andreano, Michael Gordon, John Culhane, and Lisa Lanham, partners in the Group.

The eyes of the consumer finance world are now on the Supreme Court as it decides whether to grant the CFPB's certiorari petition in Consumer Financial Services Association Ltd. v. CFPB. In the decision, a Fifth Circuit panel held the CFPB's funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In Part I, we focused on the legal arguments underlying the Fifth Circuit decision and potential outcomes. In Part II, we discuss the potential practical effects of a Supreme Court decision that holds the CFPB's funding is unconstitutional on existing CFPB mortgage and other regulations and on pending and future CFPB enforcement actions. In particular, we consider how the current legal uncertainty might factor into the litigation strategy of companies that are the targets of CFPB enforcement activity as well as companies' compliance strategy. We also consider the uncertainty's impact on the CFPB's ongoing operations and conclude with a discussion of how Congress might react if the Supreme Court holds that the CFPB's funding is unconstitutional. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion, joined by John Culhane, Richard Andreano, and Michael Gordon, partners in the Group.

The eyes of the consumer finance world are now on the Supreme Court as it decides whether to grant the CFPB's certiorari petition in CFSA v. CFPB. In the decision, a Fifth Circuit panel held the CFPB's funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. We first review the background of CFSA's lawsuit, the mechanism through which the CFPB is funded, and Congress's policy rationale for the mechanism. We then examine the reasoning behind the Fifth Circuit's conclusion that the funding mechanism is unconstitutional, the CFPB's strategy in response to the decision, and the issues CFSA is expected to raise in a cross-petition for certiorari. We conclude with Adam's predictions on the outcome of the cert petitions, how SCOTUS is likely to rule if it grants the CFPB's petition, potential remedies if SCOTUS rules the funding is unconstitutional, and the impact of such a ruling on pending and future litigation challenging CFPB actions. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion, joined by John Culhane, Richard Andreano, and Michael Gordon, partners in the Group.

The FTC's proposal would impose a number of new substantive and disclosure requirements on auto dealers in connection with the car buying or leasing process. We first discuss NADA's comment letter to the FTC on the proposal, including NADA's concerns with the process used by the FTC to issue the proposal and with the proposal's disclosure, recordkeeping, website posting, and other requirements. We then discuss the auto finance industry's concerns with the proposal, including the risks arising from the FTC Holder Rule, the industry's call for safe harbors, and other steps auto finance companies can take to mitigate risks in connection with ancillary products. We conclude with a discussion of the CFPB's focus on ancillary products, including CFPB supervisory activity, potential areas of CFPB scrutiny, and the CFPB's use of its authority to supervise auto finance companies to influence dealer behavior. John Culhane, a partner in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation.

The CFPB's growing interest in and scrutiny of BNPL comes at a time when the BNPL industry is experiencing rapid growth. That makes it imperative for both companies currently offering BNPL products and companies considering whether to enter into the BNPL market to be aware of the practices that are likely to receive increased CFPB scrutiny and how future CFPB initiatives involving BNPL could impact the industry. After providing an overview of the report, we discuss its key findings, the discrete consumer harms and risks identified by the CFPB, how the CFPB might use its supervisory, regulatory, and enforcement authority in the BNPL market and the likelihood of such use, and state law enforcement and other state activity involving BNPL. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by Michael Guerrero, John Culhane, Lisa Lanham, and Michael Gordon, partners in the Group.

In a decision with enormous potential implications, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the manner in which the CFPB is funded violates the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. After reviewing the decision, we discuss: the CFPB's strategic options for next litigation steps; the decision's potential impact on existing regulations and ongoing rulemakings, ongoing and future enforcement litigation and investigations, and consent orders; and possible legislative fixes and the likelihood of bipartisan support. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Service Group, leads the discussion, joined by John Culhane, Richard Andreano, and Michael Gordon, partners in the Group.

Nothing says "family friendly" quite like the name Disney, but Disney has always had its dark side. Here to help us with our cell-shaded sins, we have Ryan and James of the Creepy Kingdom podcast network.   SHOW LINKS Creepy Kingdom's website, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram Giving the Devil His Due: Satan In Cinema, by JP Telotte (2021) Hell's Bells on YouTube Goddess of Spring on YouTube  Night On Bald Mountain, Michael Clive, Utah Symphony Walt Disney's Fantasia, by John Culhane (1983) Chernobog and Belobog – The Slavic Gods Who Weren't, Brendan Noble (2020) The Gospel According to Disney, by Mark Pinsky (2004) The Consumption and Destruction of the Female Body in Modern Witch Media, Chankaya Simpson, Guilford College (2022) Overthinking It: Part of Your World, Carolyn Loy (2010) LA Times: Disney Romancing the Devil, Greg Burk (2014) Devil in Disguise: Characterizations of Hades in Children's Media, Morgan E Gray (2013)   ABORTION FUNDS Check out AbortionFunds.org for tons of resources near you -- and if you can, donate! Alabama Cohosh Collaborative Indigenous Women Rising Abortion Fund of Arizona Arkansas Abortion Support Network ACCESS REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE Colorado Doula Project The Brigid Alliance DC Abortion Fund Florida Access Network National Abortion Federation Hotline Chicago Abortion Fund Iowa Abotion Access Fund All-Options Hoosier Abortion Fund Kansas Abortion Fund Kentucky Health Justice Network New Orleans Abortion Fund Safe Abortions For Everyone Maine Baltimore Abortion Fund Jane Fund of Central Massachusetts Reclaim MI WIN Fund South Dakota Access for Every Woman Midwest Access Coalition Missouri Abortion Fund Susan Wicklund Fund Nebraska Abortion Resources Silver State Hope Fund Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire New Jersey Abortion Access Fund Mariposa Fund New York Abortion Access Fund Carolina Abortion Fund North Dakota Women in Need Abortion Access Fund Women Have Options – Ohio Roe Fund Cascades Abortion Support Collective Western Pennsylvania Fund for Choice Women's Health and Education Fund Abortion Care for Tennessee Lilith Fund Utah Abortion Fund Vermont Access to Reproductive Freedom Blue Ridge Abortion Fund Women In Need Fund of Cedar River Clinics Holler Health Justice Options Fund Chelsea's Fund   GET IN TOUCH WITH BLACK MASS APPEAL Facebook Twitter Instagram Patreon Tabitha Slander's Instagram Discord server   SATANIC BAY AREA Website Facebook Twitter (as @SatanicSF) Instagram Sign up for Satanic Bay Area's newsletter On TikTok as DailyBaphirmations Coffee Hour is the third TUESDAY of every month from 6 – 8 pm at Wicked Grounds in San Francisco!

Together with our special guest whose company provides software enabling lenders to use AI to underwrite loans, we explore a wide range of issues of importance to lenders using AI to underwrite loans. Our discussion topics include: the CFPB's position on how ECOA adverse action notice requirements apply to credit decisions based on the use of AI; what is meant by explainability and interpretability of AI; fair lending and other compliance risks and steps to reduce risk; preparing for CFPB exams; and the CFPB's call for tech workers to act as whistleblowers to report potential discrimination arising from the use of AI. Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel hosts the conversation, joined by John Culhane and Michael Gordon, partners in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group.

The CFPB recently announced that it is updating its exam manual to direct its examiners to consider discriminatory conduct an “unfair” act or practice represents a significant expansion of its UDAAP authority. We discuss: the CFPB's legal theory; types of products/services/bases for discrimination the CFPB could reach using unfairness and role of disparate impact analysis; what manual updates tell examiners to ask about and look at; implications for entities the CFPB does not supervise or have jurisdiction over; likely legal challenges to the Bureau's theory; and how companies can prepare. Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel, hosts the conversation, joined by John Culhane and Ron Vaske, partners in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group, and Heather Klein, Of Counsel in the Group.

Jared, Oriana and Ned talk about Ned's choice of topic: Ralph Bakshi's animated film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. A heavily promoted effort at the time due it being both the first ever version of Tolkien's work done for film as well as due to Bakshi's notable reputation as the most well known American animator since Walt Disney and Chuck Jones, the 1978 movie was a reasonable success but not a smash, and the fact that it was only the first half of a planned two-film sequence – but not marketed as such – led to confused audiences and an upset Tolkien reader fanbase. At once a surprisingly faithful if still heavily redacted version of the book and a very unusual mix of animation styles that grew out of Bakshi's earlier movies, the film has retained a cult following since, and the resulting contrast with the later Peter Jackson movies has proven illuminating to both. What makes the sequences like the Flight to the Ford both compelling viewing and something of a slog? Which voice actors bring a notable depth to their characters along with the script and animation efforts – and which ones end up undercutting their characters completely? How does the shifting between particular animation styles, even within scenes, both act as intriguing experiment aiming to solve particular problems and yet also a confusing mess? And what is up with that incredibly generic musical score?SHOW NOTES.Jared's doodle. Jackson riffed on this scene for a reason.And Jared did bake a cake for Megaphonic's Kitchen Party! Check it out.The new Tolkien Estate page, worth a poke around.The Tolkien Society's announcement of Priscilla Tolkien's passing.Ralph Bakshi's site. The specific Lord of the Rings page has a variety of stills, behind the scenes shots and preparatory work from the production.The IMDB entry for Bakshi's production. (The film is available for streaming from a variety of services.)The AFI catalog entry for the production.Ralph Bakshi: Forging Through the Darkness, a short documentary.The Tolkien Experience, Episode 32: Ralph Bakshi, an extended interview by Luke Shelton.An Exhaustive History of Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings by Dan Olson of Folding Ideas. (And as we spoke about in the episode, Olson's two hour plus video on NFTs and crypto is an absolute must-watch.)Three Rings For Hollywood, Janet Brennan Croft's short comparative study of various film script adaptations of The Lord of the Rings up through Bakshi's adaptation.‘Will the Video Version of Tolkien Be Hobbit Forming?,' John Culhane's late 1977 New York Times story on the Rankin-Bass Hobbit which also includes separate quotes from Bakshi on his then-forthcoming adaptation.Vincent Canby's review of the film for the New York Times.Roger Ebert's review of the film for the Chicago Sun-Times.Mythlore 19, Winter 1979, which contains two reviews of the film from Steven Walker and Dale Ziegler.Information on Amon Hen 39, published in June 1979, which contains four separate reviews of the film, including the Mythlore review from Steven Walker.‘Hobbits On Film,' Glenn Gaslin's 2001 retrospective consideration of the Bakshi production for Slate, written in the run-up to the release of Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring.Bakshi's 2015 interview with TheOneRing.net.Austen Gilkenson's extended 2018 study of the film for Tor, part one and part two.Ned's own 2018 piece about the film and other Tolkien adaptations of the time, published in the Quietus.A TV ad for the film.The Electric Company Magazine! And like Ned said, there was a tie-in issue.As for the board game, it had Shelob at least.You know the Spider-man meme. As for Bakshi on his Spider-man experience, he's not thrilled…That Legolas reaction. It's a choice.The Flight to the Ford scene – well worth watching even if you don't know the full film, it sums up both the strengths and oddities of the adaptation.An example of the intriguing angular design of the Shire woods in the Shadow of the Past Goes Outdoors sequence. (Compare to Eyvind Earle's work on Disney's Sleeping Beauty.)The full Lothlorien sequence, with Galadriel's fashion sense, the strange elf choir, the training montage as such and the Mirror of Galadriel highs and lows.Two notable sequences showing how Bakshi's Aragorn is as Jared puts it ‘his' Aragorn (costume aside): his meeting with the Hobbits in the Prancing Pony parlor and Boromir's death, especially with the wordless reaction from Aragorn near the end of the clip.The Council of Elrond sequence definitely is a moment. Not a GOOD moment…The Shadow of the Past sequence, with the quick cuts of the seasons, Gandalf being crabby and stagy, Frodo's agape reaction to the Ring being tossed into the fire and so forth.Gandalf meets Saruman – or Aruman, depending on the line. Orthanc's design and Saruman's MANY COLORS! included.The hobbits first encounter the Nazgul, and it's a truly creepy moment.Ah yes the Balrog. We agree with the title of this clip.Aside from the opening credits, the prologue sequence is really impressive as we note. But yeah that one Elves bit.Our episode on Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring. And our orc episode.Gollum being Gollum. And almost being redeemed towards the end of this clip. (Per Jared's comparison, here's Quentin Crisp on Letterman.)Grima petting Theoden. Can't put it any plainer.Sam, Sam, Sam. Where to begin? So many examples. And then there's that ‘moment.'Aragorn takes a tumble. Helm's Deep here is not exactly Jackson's.That's one big skull in Moria. Meantime, is Rivendell a lamasery?If you REALLY want to hear the soundtrack… But yes, just listen to Rosenman's Star Trek IV soundtrack instead as Jared suggests.The heroic ending! Sorta. Maybe. If you squint.Support By-The-Bywater and Megaphonic FM on Patreon!

The CFPB's recently-issued request for information takes aim at what the CFPB labels “junk fees” charged by consumer financial services providers. We discuss the types of fees targeted in the RFI, particularly fees related to deposit accounts and mortgages, and the impact of existing regulatory requirements on the CFPB's initiative. We also examine the CFPB's authority to address so-called “junk fees,” consider possible short- and long-term actions the CFPB could take in response to the RFI, offer steps providers can take to prepare for greater scrutiny of ancillary fees and possible legal challenges, and describe the CFPB readiness reviews that Ballard Spahr attorneys are conducting to assist providers in assessing the permissibility and disclosure of fees charged in connection with their consumer products and services. Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel, hosts the conversation, joined by John Culhane, Richard Andreano, and Ron Vaske, partners in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group.

In Part II of this two-part podcast, we continue our examination of the CFPB's proposed rule implementing Sec. 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act which would impose significant new data collection and reporting requirements on lenders in connection with credit applications made by small businesses, including women- or minority-owned small businesses. We discuss the “firewall provision” restricting employee access to data, the proposal's intersection with HMDA reporting requirements, the likely timeline for issuance of a final rule and compliance deadlines, the outlook for CFPB supervision and enforcement of the final rule, operational considerations in preparing for implementation, and fair lending risk management implications and mitigants. Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel, hosts the conversation, joined by John Culhane, a partner in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group, Lori Sommerfield, Of Counsel in the Group, Heather Klein, an associate in the Group, and Richard Andreano, a partner in the firm's Mortgage Banking Group.

In Part I of this two-part podcast, we examine the CFPB's proposed rule implementing Sec. 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act which would impose significant new data collection and reporting requirements on lenders in connection with credit applications made by women- or minority-owned small businesses. After reviewing the history of Sec. 1071 rulemaking (including the lawsuit that prompted the CFPB to act under a court-imposed deadline), we discuss the proposal's key definitions and data collection requirements (including timing and related procedures and reuse of previously collected data). Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel, hosts the conversation, joined by John Culhane, a partner in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group, Lori Sommerfield, Of Counsel in the Group, and Heather Klein, an associate in the Group.

We discuss a range of practical issues related to the rule's rapidly-approaching effective date, including: the prospects for further CFPB rulemaking or guidance; the aspects of the rule that should be prioritized by third-party collectors and debt buyers; the rule's impact on creditors (for internal collections and third-party collector/debt buyer oversight), state law considerations, and steps being taken to mitigate risk; and greatest risks for third-party collectors and creditors once the rule is effective. Chris Willis, Co-Chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by Stefanie Jackman and John Culhane, partners in the Group.

Walt Disney has a lot of leadership characteristics.  What did those who were closest to him think about him and his management style?  Once again, Pete Blank shares thoughts of Walt Disney from those who knew him best. John Hench - feeling good Van France - that's not my job John Culhane - happiness Sharon Disney Lund - work and family Roy Williams - treat me the same  

  Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Law Professor John Culhane, of Widener University Delaware Law School, to discuss LBGTQ+ rights and the law. In today’s conversation, Aaron and John discuss what the 2020 Presidential election will bring as far as administrative changes, and contemplate what the aftereffects may be regarding the LGBTQ+ community.   In this episode, Aaron and John explore the challenge of reconciling the Constitutional rights of religious freedoms and personal liberties, touching on the issues of executive action and the administrative state, the magnitude of an administration’s position and the affects of these on the Supreme Court, as well as the complexities in easing tension between religion and the right to non-discrimination. John and Aaron talk about the Colorado Masterpiece Bake Shop case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission), the importance of our vote, Title VII, immigration, the landmark Obergefell decision (Obergefell v. Hodges), the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and more. Looking ahead, Aaron and John ruminate on the anticipated upcoming issues, as well as the cases percolating through the system now, such as a Philadelphia foster care case and a surrogacy matter involving a same-sex couple. What should we expect to see after November? And, what will be the fallout?   Professor Culhane is a Professor of Law and the H. Albert Young Fellow in Constitutional Law and Co-Director of the Family Health Law & Policy Institute at Widener University Delaware Law School, as well as a contributing writer for Slate Magazine. Teaching courses in Family Law, Torts, Public Health Law, and others, John is inspired by his student’s desire to expand their knowledge and deepen their comprehension of what he refers to as “often dense and even ‘messy’ legal doctrine and policy.”   Professor Culhane is a co-author of “Same-Sex Legal Kit for Dummies,” editor and a contributor to “Reconsidering Law and Policy Debates: A Public Health Perspective,” and the author of some three dozen law review articles on a wide range of topics, including: the rights of LGBT couples; compensation of victims of mass disasters; the public health implications of such disparate issues as sports-related concussions, bullying, same-sex marriages, and vaccine compensation policy; in addition to a wide range of tort law issues (including informed consent, product liability, and educational malpractice.) He has thrice won the Outstanding Faculty award at Widener, and has twice received the Douglas E. Ray Scholarship Award. Professor Culhane is co-chair of Widener’s LGBT Task Force and a member of the Board of Directors of Women’s Way. He is also a member of the Advisory Council of Equality Delaware.   Listen in to learn more!     To learn more about Professor Culhane, please visit his bio page here.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: John Culhane     Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Fish Out of Water podcast host John Culhane talks to Becca Mann about her epic 21-hour swim in Hawaii, and the future of open water swimming.

Fish Out of Water host John Culhane interviews Bahamian swimmer Elvis Burrows: the most opinionated man in swimming. Torrey Hart and Karl Ortegon join him for a debrief afterwards.

In this episode, John Culhane talks with Tina Andrew: the General Manager of the New York Breakers in the new International Swimming League.

In this episode, John Culhane, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Family Health Law & Policy Institute at Widener University Delaware Law School, discusses his article "The Right to Say, But Not to Do: Balancing First Amendment Freedom of Expression with the Anti-Discrimination Imperative," which was published in the Widener Law Review. Culhane reflects on the inherent tension between the values of freedom of expression and anti-discrimination, which the Supreme Court recently tried and failed to reconcile in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil RightsCommission. He observes that existing proposals to balance those competing values are impractical and unworkable, and suggests that the answer may be more speech, not less. Culhane is on Twitter at @johnculhane. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Slate.com contributor and Widener Law professor John Culhane joins Jamie-Lee and Maya to read and discuss his piece "Little Mirrors of Mortality," which is from the perspective of a parent realizing his mortality in his children's eyes. Our usual perspective is flipped, in a sense, to great effect thanks to John's piece. We also discuss John's perspective as a gay dad who came out later in life, and relate the idea of "coming out" to how those who've lost parents young choose to identify themselves.

Slate.com contributor and Widener Law professor John Culhane joins Jamie-Lee and Maya to read and discuss his piece "Little Mirrors of Mortality," which is from the perspective of a parent realizing his mortality in his children's eyes. Our usual perspective is flipped, in a sense, to great effect thanks to John's piece. We also discuss John's perspective as a gay dad who came out later in life, and relate the idea of "coming out" to how those who've lost parents young choose to identify themselves.

Rebecca Lavoie, Carvell Wallace, and Gabriel Roth sit down with John Culhane, author of Slate's Hey, Daddy! column about being a gay dad of twins, plus step-parenting resentments, the sad end of bedtime reading time, and Rebecca's new family project in listener questions, "Triumphs and Fails" and recommendations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rebecca Lavoie, Carvell Wallace, and Gabriel Roth sit down with John Culhane, author of Slate's Hey, Daddy! column about being a gay dad of twins, plus step-parenting resentments, the sad end of bedtime reading time, and Rebecca's new family project in listener questions, "Triumphs and Fails" and recommendations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Culhane, a professor at Delaware Law School, and Michael Vatis, a partner at Steptoe and Johnson, discuss the legal grounds for FBI director James Comey's firing. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

John Culhane, a professor at Delaware Law School, and Michael Vatis, a partner at Steptoe and Johnson, discuss the legal grounds for FBI director James Comey's firing. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

TMNT is getting a 2D animated special from Titmouse Inc, the "Guardians of the Galaxy" Disney XD series shows some serious action with its new trailer and Chinese animation shows it's on the rise in a big way with "Rock Dog." There were also two passings we mention this week: wrestler and actor "Rowdy" Roddy Piper, and animation historian and reporter John Culhane. In other news, apparently there's a PEZ movie coming (PEZ like the candy not PES the animator... which would be fascinating and wanted). Also, Stephen is back from traveling and as such is in front of a nice sounding mic instead of the patchwork sounds of the tablet you heard for the last few weeks. Enjoy the crisp cool sounds of jet lag! CLICK HERE to go to the full blog post & leave a comment! Annotations: (11:55)   New 2D Animated TMNT special announced (23:16)   New clip and 30 second trailer from Disney XD GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY (38:38)   DEADPOOL trailer for the trailer (44:55)   Chinese produced animated film for western audience crossover, ROCK DOG, has a trailer (1:05:15)   PEZ animated movie in the works (1:25:53)   RAPID FIRE!!!!!!!! (1:51:15)   SHOUTOUT: Greg Pugh for the fan art he made us on twitter (embedded in last week's episode's post) (1:55:59)   Recommended Reading: The Jetsons first season, on Smithsonian Magazine Check out more of your hosts:Stephen Brooks (@RubberOnion)Rob Yulfo (@RobYulfo)Pat Ryan (@TheBadPatRyan)And please Rate/Review us on iTunes & Rate/Review on Stitcher while you're at it (=

Co-Sponsored by GSC and Gender & Women Studies, Panel Discussion on Perspectives on Same Sex Marriages in Pennsylvania, featuring John Culhane, Professor, Widener Law Fr. Joseph Calderone, Campus Ministry, Jessica Streeter, Isabelle Barker, and Ken Oakes

Co-Sponsored by GSC and Gender & Women Studies, Panel Discussion on Perspectives on Same Sex Marriages in Pennsylvania, featuring John Culhane, Professor, Widener Law Fr. Joseph Calderone, Campus Ministry, Jessica Streeter, Isabelle Barker, and Ken Oakes

Co-Sponsored by GSC and Gender & Women Studies, Panel Discussion on Perspectives on Same Sex Marriages in Pennsylvania, featuring John Culhane, Professor, Widener Law Fr. Joseph Calderone, Campus Ministry, Jessica Streeter, Isabelle Barker, and Ken Oakes