Showing posts with label regulatory. Show all posts

Headlines and news rundowns from my personal reading... The Dodd Frank Report studies the resolution of financial institutions as require...

Headlines and news rundowns from my personal reading...

The Dodd Frank Report studies the resolution of financial institutions as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (U.S. Courts Page)


"I don't support going back to Glass-Steagall as is," Mnuchin told the Senate Finance Committee. "When we talked about policy with the president-elect, our view is we need a 21st century version."

Away from that....A paper from Federal Reserve staff released in December that found that the Volcker rule had a negative effect on corporate-bond liquidity, or the ease with which buyers and sellers can find each other. Federal Reserve Paper: Volcker Rule and Market-Making - Link

The head of CME Group on the Volcker Rule: Everybody thinks Dodd-Frank is in full swing, so people want to dismantle something that's not even 100% enacted today. So I think we have to wait and see how this plays out. But the pendulum definitely swung a little too far against the dealers, in my opinion. The Volcker Rule is something that needs to be looked at. They need to be able to proprietary trade. But when they have taxpayers backing up their deposits, and they're proprietary trading, there's some issues there. We are going to have to see what happens. - Business Insider

Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein are saying the SAME thing...Link at Dealbreaker

Sixth Circuit Declines to Address the Definition of Dodd Frank “Whistleblower
Background & Links -
On January 13, 2017, the Sixth Circuit in Verble v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, declined an opportunity to be the third federal appellate court to address the definition of “whistleblower” under Dodd Frank’s anti-retaliation provision. Background In 2013, the Fifth Circuit in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013) held that the text of Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision (Section 922) requires that a “whistleblower” report an alleged violation to the SEC to be covered. Some district courts have followed Asadi while others have rejected Asadi and held that an internal complaint of an alleged securities law violation is sufficient to invoke Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation protection. In response to the growing disagreement amongst courts, the SEC issued an interpretive rule on August 4, 2015, clarifying that for purposes of Dodd-Frank’s employment retaliation protections, individuals who have not reported alleged misconduct to the SEC may nevertheless qualify as “whistleblowers.” Over one month after the SEC issued this guidance, the Second Circuit in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy held that Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower protection provision applies to individuals who did not bring the complaint to the SEC, but instead reported internally within the company. Within that decision, the Second Circuit recognized the contrary holding in Asadi and reasoned that the Fifth Circuit’s opinion too narrowly limits the scope of whistleblower protections under Dodd-Frank.
The National Law Review - http://www.natlawreview.com/article/sixth-circuit-declines-to-address-definition-dodd-frank-whistleblower

Article posted here, a few months back on Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform - http://www.chaganomics.com/2016/12/dodd-frank-rollback-despite-ny-fed.html

From Pando Daily: "On Monday the JOBS Act finally goes into effect, and startups as well as venture capital and private equity funds ...



From Pando Daily:


"On Monday the JOBS Act finally goes into effect, and startups as well as venture capital and private equity funds can advertise their fundraising efforts to the world. However, they still can’t sell stock to the world. The onus is on the companies to prove that their investors are “sophisticated.” They are simply allowed to talk publicly about it now.

With the new rules, startups must file an advanced Form D with the SEC fifteen days before they plan to solicit investors. That is a challenge for many startups, because the forms are very detailed and these companies are often so early stage that they can’t answer all the questions. If they have to update anything, they must re-file with the SEC. And every time they so much as publicly talk about fundraising, they have to include the same sort of legal jargon that public company CEOs are required to include. If mess up, they’ll be placed in a penalty box of sorts, where they can’t raise new funds for a full year."


Reach out to pros on the paperwork, guys like me have tons of experience with labor intensive regulatory filings, but many don't and you do not want to be sidelined from mistakes made by lack of experience. However, if you are at this point you should already be "there" in theory. - C


Full Article Here

Copyright 2010 - 20222

2020 - 2022. (C) ZMI Rights Management Ltd.