Michele Alt’s Post

Explore legal developments from Q4 2023 that will shape Georgia's banking landscape in 2024 and beyond. Authored by Nancy Baughan and Joe Wilson, this insightful Law360 article delves into brewing federal legislation and impactful regulatory guidance from Georgia's Department of Banking and Finance. [https://bit.ly/3NYC0fr]

🔮 Prediction: This Supreme Court ruling is bound to shake up the world of banking regulation and enforcement. 🌊 The ripple effects of this decision will be felt throughout the industry, as federal banking agencies will have to reassess their strategies and approach to handling cases with civil penalties. 🤔 It will be interesting to see how this impacts the balance of power between regulators and financial institutions in the coming years. 📈 We can expect a surge in litigation and possibly a shift in how banks interact with regulators as they navigate these new legal waters. 👨⚖️ With the right to a jury trial now a reality, defendants in banking cases will have a powerful tool to push back against regulatory enforcement actions. 💼 This could lead to more drawn-out legal battles and potentially higher costs for both sides involved. 📚 Legal scholars and practitioners alike will have a field day analyzing the implications of this ruling and how it might shape future jurisprudence. 🛡️ The Supreme Court's conservative majority has definitely redrawn the boundaries of regulatory oversight in the financial sector. 👀 Keep an eye out for how this decision plays out in real-world cases and watch as the banking industry adapts to this new legal landscape. 🔒 Ultimately, this ruling underscores the importance of understanding the intersection between law and finance and the far-reaching consequences of judicial decisions.

León Cosgrove Jiménez, LLP is pleased to highlight a recent article published on Law360 by our very own, Ben Weinberg and Megan Riley, titled "Fla. Banking Brief: All the Notable Legal Updates in Q1". This article offers a concise overview of the significant regulatory and legislative developments affecting Florida's banking and finance sector in the first quarter of 2024. It provides an analysis of potential changes stemming from Florida’s S.B. 532 on the state Securities and Investor Protection Act, as well as the impact of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s final rule on credit card penalty fees for Florida's larger card issuers. We believe this piece will be valuable to legal and financial professionals looking to stay updated on the latest sector changes without delving into exhaustive research. We invite our clients and peers to read the full article on Law360 for a clear understanding of these updates and their implications. #LeónCosgroveJiménezLLP #BankingAndFinance #FloridaLaw

The aftermath of the Hayne Royal Commission has reshaped the financial landscape in remarkable ways. Tune in next Thursday, September 7th for the 2023 Credit Law Conference, and join a stellar line-up of Australian banking and finance experts, as they delve into the crucial contemporary issues: - Understanding Current Jurisprudence Challenges - Spotlight on ASIC's Attention and Legal Actions - Insights from Cases: Revealing Core Issues - Enhancing Consumer Outcomes: Unveiling Solutions Don't miss essential debates on the delicate balance between system upgrades, legal risks, costs, and reputation concerns. Can you afford to miss these discussions? Register Now: https://lnkd.in/gBc8_x4A Expert Presenters Include: Andrea Beatty Dr June Smith GAICD Shannon Adams Ian Lockhart #StevenKlimt Craig Hine Joshua Annese Olga Ganopolsky Patrick Fair Elaine Cheung Nikesh Lalchandani Produced by: Heather Ruddock #CreditLawConference #FinancialInsights #AdaptingForTomorrow

𝐀𝐏𝐑𝐀 𝐯 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐲 I must say the facts are rather dramatic and unreal, almost like a movie. 𝑻𝙝𝒆 𝑺𝙩𝒐𝙧𝒚 The short version is that Mr Gray is now permanently banned from carrying on a banking business in Australia, including activities incidental to the carrying on of a banking business. The entities associated with Mr Gray are: ◾The Commercial Development Bank (CDB), and ◾The Creditnet Bank Internationale (Creditnet) They are not registered companies in Australia, nor are they on APRA's ADI register. 𝘛ℎ𝘦 𝘛𝑖𝘮𝑒𝘭𝑖𝘯𝑒 ◾ Sep 2004: The RBA brought to APRA's attention that Creditnet passed off bills of exchange at the ATO for a commercial settlement. ◾Between 2004 and 2012, there were correspondences between APRA and Mr Gray. APRA issued a number of cease and desist letters during this period. There were enquiries from overseas and the general public within Australia about the legitimacy of Creditnet and CDB. ◾2012: The ATO took over the responsibilities for investigating the CDB, according to APRA's records. ◾April 2022 - Jan 2023: APRA engaged with other regulators and referred CDB, Creditnet and Mr Gray to law enforcement agencies. ◾ Aug 2022: APRA received a referral from Deutsche Bank reg CDB's authenticity, prompting APRA's enforcement team to conduct investigations. ◾ Nov 2022 - Sep 2023: APRA issued further cease and desist letters to CDB and Creditnet and received overseas enquiries during this period. ◾Sep 2023: APRA instituted the present proceedings in the Federal Court, seeking orders to permanently restraining Mr Gray from carrying on banking business in Australia and from using the works 'bank', 'banker', 'banking' and similar words in relation to any purported bank or business. 𝑴𝙮 𝙩𝒘𝙤 𝙘𝒆𝙣𝒕𝙨: ▶ I wonder why it took APRA till late 2023 to bring a case against Gray, despite the fact that: 🔸 APRA was alerted about Creditnet as early as 2004; 🔸 Mr Gray's long history of making unsubstantiated claims and his lack of substantive cooperation with APRA; and 🔸 All the enquires that the regulator received domestically and from overseas. ▶ APRA had problems effecting personal service of the original application documents on Mr Gray, as he did and does not reside at any of the published Australian addresses. He relied on his son to check the mailboxes for him. He did not reply to any of the emails that APRA sent to him. Gray was also absent throughout the proceedings. ▶ Since Mr Gray is outside the country, I wonder how much teeth the restraining order would have on Gray and/or his operations. ▶ In light of the crucial role that ADIs play in our community, would it be worthwhile to consider imposing criminal liabilities on persons committing acts similar to those of Mr Gray? I am a big fun of regulators adopting a supportive approach when dealing with their regulated entities in the first instance, but not when someone such as Mr Gray is involved. https://lnkd.in/gJjmHWsN

🗓 Save the Date! 🌐 The upcoming third SRB Legal Conference, "Navigating Legal Frontiers in the EU Banking Union and Beyond" is taking place on Thursday 6 June 2024 🌍 Join us for and explore the latest legal developments shaping the future of the banking landscape. This conference is a must-attend for legal experts, professionals, and enthusiasts eager to stay at the forefront of regulatory changes and challenges. 🔍 More details on the agenda and registration to come soon: https://lnkd.in/d-mshS-E #SRBlegal2024 #FinancialStability

JUST IN: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is constitutionally funded. In a 7-2 decision, and with the opinion written by Justice Thomas, the majority said that the CFPB's funding arrangement does not conflict with the Constitution's Appropriations Clause, which assigns ultimate control over spending to Congress. "Under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes," Justice Thomas wrote. "The statute that provides the Bureau's funding meets these requirements. We therefore conclude that the Bureau's funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause." Justice Alito dissented from the majority, joined by Justice Gorsuch. #cfpb #supremecourt #regulations #consumerfinance #financialinstitutions #fintech #financialservices

Speech by Governor Bowman on tailoring, fidelity to the rule of law, and unintended consequences: https://lnkd.in/eMB_8esx Learn more about Governor Bowman: https://lnkd.in/erXSD-b

Last week the Supreme Court decided to end “Chevron deference” to government agencies. Some commentators have opined that this ultimately will result in more clarity by forcing Congress to eliminate statutory ambiguity. It was this ambiguity that enabled regulators to promulgate supposed interpretations that effectively served as new laws for regulated industries like fintech and banking. Unfortunately, I think the opposite is likely true. 🔹The demise of Chevron deference in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision hints at a decentralized regulatory approach, but for fintech and banking, it's likely more of a shift from explicit rules to the murkier realm of "soft law" like non-binding guidelines and recommendations. A clever way for agencies to maintain control without the hassle of formal rulemaking. 🔹Idealists might hope that Congress would step back into the driver's seat of regulation, but let's face it – the track record of Congress is dismal. For fintech and banking, expect more of the same: agencies like the CFPB, FDIC, FRB, and OCC running the show with little meaningful oversight. 🔹As regulators cannot rely on judicial deference to formal rulemaking, watch as regulation increasingly relies on the whims of agency guidelines and the so-called enforcement discretion. It’s regulation by “suggestion” rather than by law, making compliance a guessing game. 🔹The end of Chevron might seem like a win for reducing overreach, but it opens the door to subtler forms of influence. For fintech firms and banks, this means navigating a landscape where the rules are implied rather than inscribed. 🔹Don’t expect a sudden clarity or return to strict legal frameworks in regulation. Instead, prepare for a slow creep of evolving, informal practices that keep agencies in power. The bottom line is that for fintech and bank execs and legal teams, the post- Chevron world isn't about clearer rules; it's likely about staying nimble in a game where the rules are increasingly made up and the points don't matter. #Fintech #Regulation #ChevronDeference #Compliance #CFPB #Banking

More excellent reasoning why the U.S. will regret the overturning of "Chevron Deference". The Israeli case should be a warning. Israel never had a "Chevron"-style judicial deference doctrine and the Supreme Courts always assumed the power to review legislation under its own interpretation. However, there is no legislative interpretation without injecting policy considerations and principles. Consequently, since the 1990's, the court came increasingly under attack for its perceived "judicial activism" and legislating from the bench. For the past year and a half, Israel's democracy has been in crisis due to continuing attempts by its extreme right-wing the government to severely curtail the power and independence of the judiciary (which it perceives as "leftist"). Accusing the courts of judicial overreach as its rallying cry. In case you haven't been following, it doesn't end well. "Chevron" was a powerful doctrine of judicial restraint and separation of powers. Now the U.S. courts led by the U.S. Supreme Court will no longer be able to pretend they are not engaged in administrative rule-making. It is very curious that those who with to take away the final say on interpreting administrative laws from the hands of unelected bureaucrats (who serve under the elected administrative branch) have no problem giving that role to unelected judges.