Lisa Rubin’s Post

Today's #US #Supreme #Court ruling in Looper Bright Enterprises will have potentially huge impact on #financial #regulation, including our #AML and #Sanctions programs. In particular, the #crypto industry should consider these changes carefully. Looper Bright Enterprises has overruled the #Chevron Doctrine, which for the last 40 years gave deference to regulatory agencies interpreting their own regulations and the underlying statutes providing regulatory authority. This is of particular concern to the crypto industry because most of our Banking and Investment laws were passed decades or over a century ago when the idea of a #virtual #currency could not possibly have occurred to lawmakers. As a result, Generals Counsel of crypto firms may consider challenging some forms of regulatory action as the underlying statute may not support the regulation now that the Chevron Doctrine is gone. While our court and regulatory system could very well descend into chaos, this may force congress's hand in developing legislation that is more modern and expressly authorizes our unelected regulators to manage and supervise modern conduct. Cooperation among law makers is needed and as my friends in the industry have often said, smart regulation that protects the public and national security is welcomed. We already need comprehensive and modern legislation in our quickly evolving financial systems. This fundamental change to regulation just announced today moves us far beyond a mere "need." https://lnkd.in/eh5DKr2J

Chevron v. NRDC overruled! Big news for Crypto. This decision curtails the amount of power and leeway to federal agencies...i.e., the SEC! Before this, courts would defer to federal agencies in how they interpreted the laws they implemented (as long as it was reasonable). Now, courts can INDEPENDENTLY interpret laws without deferring to agency expertise or interpretation. Why this matters? Expect to see increased litigation against agency rules. Why this matters for crypto? This opens the floodgates for more of this: https://lnkd.in/gwdwDKV5 Let's finally end this era of regulation by enforcement. Credit to Stephen Boske, CFA for flagging it with me.

The Future of Regulatory Interpretation: What if the Supreme Court ends Chevron deference? Checkout this important article from my colleague John Lovett at Pinkston Research. https://rb.gy/8hsx69 Overview: -- The Supreme Court recently heard two cases, Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which may lead to overturning of the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. -- Overturning Chevron could have significant implications for bureaucracy and lawmaking due to its granting of bureaucratic ability to interpret legislation, known as Chevron Deference. -- An overturning of Chevron would affect the activities of the bureaucracy, Congress, and the courts, shifting interpretive authority over regulations. -- Companies dealing with government regulations, particularly in newer areas of policy like climate change, cryptocurrency, and artificial intelligence, may face more challenges due to lack of precedence. -- Companies should consider focusing on legal advocacy and lobbying efforts to ensure priorities are met and accounted for.

Happy Tuesday! 🌞 Exciting news for the legal world! The Supreme Court is set to hear two cases about the Chevron Doctrine tomorrow. The Chevron Doctrine is a legal principle determining how much deference the courts should give to agency authority versus Congressional authority. If the outcomes of these cases favor the agencies, it could have significant implications for the regulation of crypto and the broader regulatory authority of agencies. It is essential to keep a close eye on the results of these cases and their potential impacts. Stay tuned for more updates and insights on these cases. #SupremeCourt #ChevronDoctrine #RegulatoryAuthority #CryptoRegulation

The first and big German Capital Markets Model Proceedings (#KapMuG) were legendary slow and spanning decades. But in their shadow, the KapMuG actually has shown to be quite efficient in resolving a multitude of lesser known capital market disputes. Last week, an amendment was passed bringing relevant changes to speed up the proceedings and extend the scope: - The KapMuG is here to stay with sunset clauses being struck out. - The proceedings will get faster with the Higher Regional Court's being handed they rein to actively shape the relevant questions and objectives of the model cases. The cases might get more to the point and more manageable. - The scope is extended: Claims against custodians of crypto assets and - related to capital market information - rating agencies and auditors can now be decided in a model proceeding as well. Jointly with Julian Schulze De la Cruz and Dr. Dieter Hettenbach we are providing some more insight in the linked article. Stay tuned, as more is to come from Noerr's #capitalmarkets and #classaction practices, including Hans Christian Kirchner, Michael Brellochs, Tobias B. Lühmann, Julian Taufmann.

Can agisting cattle on another property be protected by the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR)? Yes they can! As can a whole heap of other personal property. In this article Timothy Vann from our Melbourne office looks at the current Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA), gives an overview of what it is, how it's used, how it protects businesses, and what is covered. Read more in JS Matters: https://lnkd.in/egt5xaTW #businessprotection #assetprotection #insolvencysolutions #insolvency #businessturnaround #jirschsutherland

https://lnkd.in/eKEVqKkN Oral Argument At SCOTUS On SEC V. Jarkesy (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog) https://lnkd.in/eKEVqKkN  Rarely do the wheels of justice spin quickly and smoothly. More often than not, it's a long, slow grind. By way of example, Oral Argument is scheduled today before the United States Supreme Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy pursuant to the granting of certiorari on June 30, 2023 -- and the underlying SEC case goes back a decade to 2013, and the underlying misconduct goes back even more years. The core issue before SCOTUS today is whether the SEC is constitutionally and statutorily empowered to enforce the federal securities laws via its in-house administrative apparatus. LISTEN to ORAL ARGUMENT at link on website.

Agency staff "no-action" letters are inherently fraught with constitutional problems because, stripped of all the legalese, nuance, and expense, they are essentially (unenforceable) permission slips issued by invisible, unelected bureaucrats that purport to exempt select people and companies from complying with binding laws passed by Congress. But if we are going to allow them, the same bureaucrats who issue them can't be allowed to revoke them years later after everyone invests their capital and expectations in reliace on what was allowed. Kudos to the Fifth Circuit for saying so and calling out both the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission for its "surprise switcheroo," and (more subtly) the district court for failing to rule on a legitimate motion to enjoin the CFTC's arbitrary and capricious bullying. And kudos to David Mason at Aristotle and to Michael Edney and his team at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP for their courage in standing up to this administrative outrage and achieving a hard-fought (and undoubtedly disruptive and expensive) victory in this case. As an aside, why does any agency of the federal government have any conceivable business meddling in non-financial prediction markets like PredictIt anyway???

Nick Morgan Brian W Tang Douglas Arner Urszula McCormack Just a quick take as to what the SCOTUS decision means in Loper. Before last week, SCOTUS ruled that basically if an administrative agency created a regulation that it stood if it was a reasonable interpretation of the Congressional statute. Loper changed that saying that judges can now independent evaluate administrative actions. So what does it mean for virtual assets..... For SEC regulation, probably nothing (although SCOTUS issued a ruling on SEC jury trials that does make a huge difference). The reason is that most of SEC securities law involves judicial decisions that were made before Chervon. The SEC has been around since the 1930's, and you have a ton of law that consists of judicial decisions from the 1940's onward. If you are basing your case on an interpretation of a judicial decision then there is no Chervon deference. However it seems to me that it will make a big deal for things that are not securities. For example, if the Federal Reserve asserts the authority to regulate stablecoins, or if the CFTC issues regulations based on Sarbanes-Oxley or Dodd-Frank, those are no longer subject to Chervon. Also if Congress passes new stablecoin legislation, what Chervon says is that ultimately it will be the courts and not the administrative agencies that will make the rules. So what does this mean for Hong Kong? I kind of think of myself as a "legal foodie". So I know how things work in HK, and I also know a bit about US, UK, and Mainland Chinese law. Don't know much about EU or Australia law, so a just as if you are a chef that is trying to make a new dish out of American ingredients, a hint of UK stuff, a dash of Chinese law, and all trying to figure out what I can get at the market.

Today, SCOTUS has done what only it could - upend forty years of its own precedent. In #overturning Chevron #deference, #SCOTUS has removed the benefit of the doubt given to agency expertise. #Environmental and #administrative issues can be complicated and require #Congress to direct agencies to address these issues. The statutory authority to act often lacks the details. Indeed, most times they are unknown at the time of passing the legislation. SCOTUS’s #Chevron decision held that if Congress’ statutory language explained what to do clearly - it should be followed by government agencies. But if its legal language lacked that clarity, or there was ambiguity, agencies with expertise were allowed to make reasonable interpretations about what the law meant and that the Courts would defer to it. Courts, in many cases, often lack the expertise necessary for such decisions. What now? Agencies will need to show that their technical conclusions are consistent with the underlying statute - leaving reliance on the agency’s #scientific expertise intact but only in service of their best interpretation - without relying upon deference from the #Court. A likely result - loss of certainty for business decisions and more #litigation as #Chevrondeference as it was is no longer. #environmentallaw #legalupdate