Advertisement

June 17, 2013

Next stop for fight over Wall Street reforms: Federal court

The battle over financial industry reforms began in Congress two years ago, then moved into regulatory agencies writing rules to carry out the Dodd-Frank law. Next stop: Federal court.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Futures Industry Associaton are among the business groups considering potential lawsuits to challenge specific Dodd-Frank regulations, the Wall Street Journal  reports.  Advocates of litigation also point to a major victory last week when a federal appeals court overturned a Securities and Exchange Commission rule giving shareholders more power to remove corporate directors.

"Suing a regulator is an expensive and slow process. It's not something we do gleefully," David Hirschmann, head of the Chamber's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, told the newspaper.

What are the most likely litigation targets?  

The SEC's new program and generous bounty to encourage corporate whistleblowers to report suspected misconduct is widely opposed by business groups. Other concerns center on the set of regulations still being developed by the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to police derivatives trading, and requirements for companies to report the pay ratio of the chief executive versus an average employee.

In general, a federal regulation cannot be challenged in a U.S. appeals court until the rule has been finalized by an agency.

Credit history & remittances - The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is studying whether data on electronic money transfers, or remittances, can be used to help construct credit scores for people who rely on them, reports The New York Times .

Most credit histories don’t contain data on how remittances may predict a consumer’s ability to repay loans, so people who rely on these products may lack credit scores and be barred from accessing loans.

The CFPB is assembling a database of information from a large remittance provider as well as credit score information from a credit bureau. According to a preliminary report from the bureau, “A finding that consumers who send remittance transfers are more likely to repay their debts than other consumers with similar credit histories could suggest that adding remittance data to credit scores would tend to raise credit scores relating to remittance senders.”

The Daily Show – “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” on Thursday night  featured a musical performance by the Dodd-Frank law. Say what?

Correspondent John Oliver took to the stage dressed as a tattered, smudged, rolled-up paper copy of the law with tire tread marks, and declared, "Yeah, I've taken a few shots but I'm still standing."

After trying to explain the year-old Dodd-Frank law in song, he abruptly halted, complaining that only 38 out of 400 mandated regulations have been completed because of lobbysts' influence. “Here’s what’s going down: this whole financial reform thing is a sham! … I’m no law, Jon. I’m just an undefined, impotent 2,300 page piece of legislative s***!”  

Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Shirley Gao writes for iWatch News. 

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.