Could the CFPB Change the Rules on Arbitration Clauses?

Of the 87 studies required by the Dodd Frank Act, one may get a bump up the priority list thanks to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in CompuCredit v. Greenwood, which upheld the rights of companies to include mandatory arbitration clauses in their user agreements. Several consumer groups disagreed with the court’s ruling and are calling on the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to get involved sooner rather than later. Section 1028 of Dodd Frank directs the CFPB to conduct a study and report to Congress on restricting mandatory pre-dispute arbitration, however, Congress set no deadline for completing the study. Once the CFPB does complete the study, the bureau has the authority to “prohibit or impose conditions or limitations” (via regulation) on arbitration agreements. The bureau’s rules must be consistent with the study.

The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) recently issued a release protesting the court’s decision and pressing the CFPB to get started on the study. “The Supreme Court decision makes it all the more urgent for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stop companies from using forced arbitration clauses to hide from the law,” said the group’s managing attorney Lauren Saunders. Saunders added, “Forced arbitration puts a thumb on the scales of justice in favor of predatory lenders...”

There are also bills in Congress that would amend the Federal Arbitration Act so that pre-dispute arbitration agreements would be invalid and unenforceable if they concern disputes related to employment, consumers, or civil rights. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011 (S. 987), sponsored by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), asserts that mandatory arbitration clauses were “intended to apply to disputes between commercial entities of generally similar sophistication and bargaining power,” not consumers. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is sponsoring companion legislation (HR 1873) in the House. Both bills are sitting in their respective judiciary committees and not expected to move any time soon in this contentious election year. FRW is watching the CFPB for the next move.

 

Now What? - Senate Fails to Stop Cordray Filibuster

This morning, Senate Republicans made good on their promise to block former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray’s nomination as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Senate voted 53-45 to proceed with the confirmation, falling short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. All but two Republicans voted to sustain the filibuster. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is the only Republican Senator to publicly support Cordray, likely because he finds himself in a tight Senate race against CFPB architect Elizabeth Warren. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who was one of only three Republicans to vote for Dodd-Frank, voted present.

So what comes next? The general consensus is: Nothing.

The House has taken steps over the last several months to prevent a recess appointment, and will likely continue to do so. The Obama Administration has not shown any sign of willingness to back down and change the bureau’s structure, nor is nominating another potential director likely to do any good. Republicans have made it clear that their hesitation has nothing to do with any individual candidate (though many believe Cordray was chosen in part because he is far less controversial than Warren); and no Senator on either side is likely to flip-flop on this issue going into an election year. In all likelihood, both sides will use it as a talking point throughout the 2012 election, with Democrats blaming Republicans for handicapping an agency aimed at protecting consumers and Republicans blaming Democrats for creating a regulatory agency without sufficient mechanisms to limit the director’s authority.

The Obama Administration has fought to rally support around Cordray in recent months. The CFPB has been operating without a director since it opened its doors on July 21, 2011, meaning that its authority is limited to banks and does not extend to non-banking financial institutions, including debt collectors, payday lenders and mortgage servicers. In May, 44 Republicans Senators sent a letter to President Obama vowing to block any nominee for director until the Bureau is restructured, namely by replacing its single director with a 5-person board. Senate Republican leaders have said that they are still waiting for a response to their letter.

Frank's Farewell and His Potential Successors

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, Father of Financial Regulatory Reform, and 16-term Congressman announced today that he will not be seeking re-election in 2012. Regardless of politics, few can deny that Rep. Frank has been a giant in the U.S. Congress, particularly in the financial sector, and that he will leave enormous shoes to fill. Within hours of the announcement, rumors began to circulate as to which Democrat will assume his prized seat on the financial services committee. Here are the top contenders:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA):

Rep. Waters, the second most senior Democrat on the committee, is believed by many to be the top choice, and sources say she wasted no time this afternoon before lobbying Members for support. Now in her 11th term in Congress, Waters is the Ranking Member of the powerful Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises and has chaired the Congressional Black Caucus. While Waters is the heir apparent, there may be obstacles in her way. She is currently under investigation by the House ethics committee for three alleged violations. The investigation will certainly continue into 2012. If the committee finds she violated House rules and/or refers her case to the Justice Department, her chances for committee leadership may diminish.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY):

Rep. Maloney is next in line after Waters and will certainly rise in influence following Rep. Frank’s departure. Elected in 1993, Maloney has a long history as an active, comparatively moderate member of the committee, and also has ties to the home of the nation’s financial sector. Rep. Maloney has chaired the Joint Economic Committee as well as the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. She was also the author of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, also known as the “Credit Card Bill of Rights,” and has been called “the best friend a credit card user ever had.” Given the controversy surrounding Waters and industry’s potential preference for a more moderate voice, some speculate that Maloney could surpass Waters and take the top spot.

The speculation will certainly continue throughout the coming year, but no definitive answer will come until the 113th Congress is sworn in in 2013.

Continue Reading...

Keep the Volcker Rule Brief, Let the Regulators Referee

Regulations to implement the Volcker Rule have hit the street. Now a new phase of the battle to reign-in proprietary trading by banks is at hand. If past is prologue, a tough and divisive battle looms. Meanwhile, the industry, regulators and customers will be dealing with the uncertainty that has bedeviled all concerned since Dodd-Frank was enacted.

How did we get here? How did a ten-page provision in legislative language end up being a 298 page proposed rule? When the industry, its lobbyists, its supporters on Capitol Hill and regulators all do what they do best, a complicated, lengthy and unwieldy set of rules is the result.
From the beginning, the banking industry has been openly opposed to the Volcker Rule. The effort to sidetrack it was unsuccessful, but the legislation did provide for exceptions to the rule to be developed by regulators.

That created the opening, and ever since enactment of the bill, industry representatives have been working to ensure the proposed regulations define, as generously as possible, the types of exceptions under which banks may trade through their own accounts. Regulators made an attempt to deal with all these issues. The resulting rules regarding market making trades, trades with and for international customers and others will allow limited proprietary trading to take place.

Now the rule is under attack by some for being too weak and others for being too cumbersome and unwieldy. Congressional hearings and proposals to repeal the Volcker Rule can be expected. A classic Washington stand-off is unfolding.

All of this will extend the uncertainty hanging over this process. The industry and its supporters may well harbor hopes that a Republican victory in the 2012 election would result in both Houses of Congress and the White House being in the hands of those supporting Volcker Rule repeal. So it may well be deep into 2013 before anyone can confidently assert the Volcker Rule process is complete.

Continue Reading...

House Republicans Gear Up for Volcker Rule Fight

After the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation released its proposed “Volcker Rule,” Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee were quick to announce hearings on the proposed regulations.

It’s a Dodd-Frank paradigm that we have come to know all too well: regulators continue to make slow progress to implement the many rulemakings required under the financial reform law, and with each new regulation, Republicans haven’t been far behind, working to repeal, scale back or defund every move the regulators have made. The hotly-contested Volcker Rule has proven to be no exception.

A House Financial Services Committee spokesman said the hearing will look at the economic impact and competitiveness of the proposed rule. The hearing will likely take place in early November.

The draft rule, which was formally released by the FDIC on October 11th and was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission this morning, is 205 pages and seeks to ban banks or institutions that own banks from engaging in proprietary trading that isn’t at the behest of their clients and from owning or investing in hedge funds or private equity funds. The rule would also limit the liabilities the largest banks could hold and preclude those banks from gaining from or hedging against short-term price movements in the securities and derivatives markets. The proposal includes exceptions for market making for customers and for hedging against risky trades made on customers’ behalf.

Proponents say that the rule will eliminate the need for future bailouts, though some are already making the case that the rule doesn’t go far enough, and it defined proprietary trading too narrowly. Major financial firms, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have already closed their proprietary trading desks in anticipation of the rule, though firms continue to argue that the rule is unnecessary, difficult to implement, and will harm their ability to compete in the global market. The GAO released a report this past summer on the Volcker Rule, noting the difficulty in detecting proprietary trading and calling it “cumbersome” and “difficult to enforce.”
The rule will be open for comment until January 2012 and would take effect on July 21, 2012 – the second anniversary of Dodd-Frank; though some say certain banks would have until 2017 to fully comply.

The Volcker Rule is a proposal by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to restrict U.S. banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. Volcker argued that this kind of proprietary trading, where deposits are used to trade on the bank’s personal accounts, played a key role in the 2008 financial crisis.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has said that it may put forth its own version of the Volcker rule. Scott O’Malia, a Republican commissioner at the CFTC, said he spoke to CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler on Friday and quoted the chairman as saying, "We might, if it's the will of the commission, put forward ... a virtually identical proposal with the other regulators, or we could go it alone." O’Malia continued, "He's not committing either way."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), for whom Dodd-Frank is named, as well as Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Carl Levin (D-MI), who first introduced the Volcker rule during the Dodd-Frank debate last summer, have yet to publicly comment on the proposed rule.

Senate Banking Committee Approves Cordray Nomination

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Development voted this morning to confirm former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The committee approved the nomination by a party-line vote of 12 to 10, with all Republican members voting against, as they have repeatedly vowed to do until the CFPB is restructured. The nomination must now come to a vote before the full Senate to complete Mr. Cordray’s confirmation. However, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has united the Republican caucus to block the nomination (until the bureau is restructured), and it is unclear when the Senate will actually take up the nomination. The CFPB was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and officially opened its doors on July 21, 2011, but its powers are limited until it has a Senate-confirmed director.

The Senate Committee also unanimously approved the nominations of Alan B. Krueger to be a Member of the Council of Economic Advisers; David A. Montoya to be Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Cyrus Amir-Mokri to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Patricia M. Loui to be a Member of the Board of Directors, Export-Import Bank of the United States; and Larry W. Walther to be a Member of the Board of Directors, Export-Import Bank of the United States.

House Republicans Blast Schapiro on...Fracking?

In the year since the passage of Dodd-Frank, House Republicans have launched a number of attacks against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), calling it wasteful, inefficient, and incompetent and blaming it for problems ranging from the Madoff Ponzi scheme to the 2008 financial crisis. The SEC has been called anti-free market, anti-business and anti-Main Street, but during yesterday’s day-long House Financial Services Committee hearing on SEC Oversight, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) came up with a new one; saying, “The SEC is fracking crazy!”

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has plenty of experience being on the defensive, but yesterday even she appeared stunned as legislators asked her why the SEC is overstepping the EPA’s authority and regulating hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a process used to access underground reserves of natural gas and oil. Shapiro insisted that the SEC’s questions about fracking have been strictly limited to assessing the actual value of oil and gas reserves as printed in investor disclosure documents. However, several reports now claim that the SEC has asked for specific information regarding the chemicals being used as well as companies’ efforts to minimize environmental impacts, asserting that those inquiries cannot reasonably relate to valuing the assets. Further, many companies are now alleging that the SEC is requiring them to disclose proprietary information which could harm their ability to compete.

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) asked Ms. Schapiro about the sources of payments to defrauded Madoff investors as well as the details of several bankruptcy cases where millions of dollars of state and federal funds were lost in bankruptcy. When Ms. Schapiro said that she was not familiar with those cases, Rep. Pearce responded that he was confused as to why the SEC is focusing its energies on regulating fracking while complaining that it lacks the resources to perform its basic duties.

While the true details of the SEC’s interest in fracking may never come to light, House Republicans are conducting vigorous SEC oversight and holding the agency to a standard that it has never in its very mixed history proven it is able to meet. Members continue to argue that the SEC will not receive more funding until it becomes more effective, and the SEC continues to insist that it cannot become more effective until it receives more funding. It’s a Catch-22 without an obvious solution.

Sections 913 & 914: Winners and Losers

For one of the first times in the Dodd-Frank debate, House Democrats and financial services industry leaders find themselves on the same side of the debate over harmonization of fiduciary standards for investment advisers and broker-dealers. Meanwhile, as the SEC opens the door for the designation of self-regulatory organizations, House Republicans appear to be at a turning point.

Fourteen months ago, banks were railing against the idea of adopting a single fiduciary standard for both investment advisers and broker-dealers, saying that it paints two very different services with the same brush and harms U.S. firms’ ability to compete worldwide. But in a hearing yesterday, stakeholders appear to have reached a compromise, following the publication of the SEC study, mandated under Section 913 of Dodd-Frank, which called for the development of a fiduciary standard for broker-dealers. The SEC staff recommended harmonizing regulation of investment advisers and broker-dealers and establishing a fiduciary duty for both, but does not subject them both to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“the ’40 Act”), as industry feared. The study also suggests three possible approaches to regulatory reform, including designating self-regulatory organizations (SROs) to oversee broker-dealers.

Winners:

  • Banks, for their part, got most of what they wanted. The SEC report failed to show any empirical evidence demonstrating a need for the change, and it concluded that subjecting broker dealers to the ’40 Act would be inappropriate, as banks have maintained from the offset.
  • House Democrats appeared pleased with the proposals, which will increase regulation of financial professionals and could open the door for additional funding for the cash-strapped SEC. Further, industry called for any regulatory actions to be performed with strict Congressional oversight, preserving a strong government role in the financial sector for the foreseeable future.

Losers:

  • The SEC’s report has been criticized by stakeholders on both sides of the debate for failing to include enough empirical evidence of a problem, opening the door for many to criticize regulators for, once again, regulating for regulation’s sake. Further, the commission was lambasted throughout the hearing for its demonstrated inability to carry out its many new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank. When faced with a choice between ceding some authority to FINRA or being tasked with additional regulatory responsibilities it cannot afford, it is tough to see an upside for the agency.
  • The Department of Labor’s proposal to broaden the definition of fiduciary standard to more financial professionals, including those who oversee IRAs, drew criticism from all sides as being ill-conceived and damaging to those who are already struggling to save for retirement in a volatile economic climate.

TBD:

  • FINRA’s request to be designated as an SRO has the support of House Republicans as well as industry and could be an opportunity to scale back, even slightly, the growing government role in the financial sector and demonstrate that self-regulation can work. On the other hand, as House Democrats appear determined to paint the organization as “the ones that missed Madoff,” regulation could end up in the hands of the SEC.
  • House Republicans maintain that there has not been a demonstrated need for reform and are using the Department of Labor’s proposal as evidence of the Obama Administration’s desire to over-regulate and expand the size of government. However, the reforms seem to be moving forward regardless of the criticisms. The House GOP could score a big win if Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus’s (R-AL) proposal to designate FINRA as an SRO becomes law and the private sector is able to regain some autonomy. If not, the SEC’s role will continue to grow and Republicans will face renewed pressure to increase its funding.

The SEC has yet to propose rules related to its study, and Rep. Bachus has not said when his legislation, still in draft form, will be introduced.

Ms. Warren Takes On Washington

Amid rumors that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau creator Elizabeth Warren is planning to take on one Senate Republican, it appears she’s decided to go to battle against all of them.

The former Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published an op-ed yesterday where she announced that she has started a petition calling on Senate Republicans to confirm Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as director of the CFPB and to protect the interests of middle class families, rather than those of big banks.

Warren has certainly amped up her rhetoric since leaving Washington this summer and returning to Harvard Law School. The once-reserved Warren called Republican’s behavior “outrageous” and said she was “proud to have been part of the David vs. Goliath effort that led to the passage of this new agency.”

“I've made my life's work fighting for middle class families and pushing back against special interests. I know what it means to live one pink slip or one health crisis away from economic disaster, because I did. That's why I'm working so hard to change things,” Warren wrote.

Her petition, “Tell Senate Republicans: Let the CFPB Do Its Work!” states, “The big banks and their army of lobbyists couldn't stop the creation of a new [CFPB], so now they are trying to undermine its work, enlisting their Republicans friends on the Senate Banking Committee. It's outrageous — and we've got to hold them accountable."

Forty-four Senate Republicans signed a letter earlier this year, vowing to block any nominee for CFPB director until structural changes are made to the bureau.

The petition is posted on the “Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts” website, the official website of her exploratory committee as she considers running against Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown in 2012. Sen. Brown was one of three Republicans not to sign the letter and has remained largely silent on the issue, despite being one of the swing votes to pass the Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection and Financial Regulatory Reform Act, which created the bureau. Warren has yet to announce her candidacy, but key Massachusetts Democrats say the announcement is coming soon. Sen. Brown, who defeated Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in a special election following the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)’s death, has been surprisingly popular in notoriously liberal Massachusetts, but recent polls suggest that Warren could give him a run for his money, polling only 9 points behind the incumbent this week.

Senate Republicans to Cordray: Nothing Personal

During yesterday’s Senate Banking Committee nomination hearing, Senators on both sides of the aisle assured Richard Cordray, the president’s nominee for director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that he is not the problem.

Tuesday’s nomination hearing stood in stark contrast to the hearings held in both the House and the Senate over the past year, where CFPB creator  and once-presumed director Elizabeth Warren faced harsh, often personal attacks from many House and Senate Republicans. Cordray, on the other hand, received nothing but compliments from committee members, who instead launched their criticisms at each other and/or the structure of the new bureau.

Democrats blasted Senate Republicans for stalling the confirmation process. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) touted the many checks imposed on the director’s authority, saying that Republican “claims that the CFPB is not accountable are little more than efforts to destroy this important agency.” He went on to accuse his GOP colleagues of “playing political games” and “holding Mr. Cordray’s nomination hostage.” His fellow Democrats echoed these criticisms, asking Cordray if he had heard a single member of the Senate question his qualifications to lead the CFPB (he had not) and blasting Republicans for trying to “re-legislate” a bill which was passed by the Congress with (albeit minimal) bipartisan support.

Republicans maintained their contention that the CFPB lacks sufficient checks and balances and reiterated their promise to block the confirmation until structural changes are made to the bureau. Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) said that the hearing was “quite premature” and criticized President Obama and Senate Democrats for “ignoring the reasonable reforms” Senate Republicans proposed earlier this year. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said that he was “shocked” by how partisan the committee had become and by “how many mistruths were being spewed” by Democrats. Corker asserted that the CFPB clearly lacks meaningful accountability and cited as evidence the language in Dodd-Frank instructing that the director’s actions can only be overruled by the Financial Stability Oversight Council if those actions “undermine the stability of the U.S. Financial System.” Both Sen. Shelby and Sen. Corker apologized to Cordray about being “caught up in all of this,” but warned that the Republicans will not give in until the changes are made.

While the Democrats have the votes to advance the nomination out of committee, 44 Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have vowed to block any nominee for director until the CFPB is restructured, and as of yet, neither side shows any signs of compromise.

Happy Birthday Dodd-Frank, Part III

It’s been called the birthday; the anniversary; the implementation deadline; the day the doors open; the transfer date; the rulemaking deadline; and more. By whatever terminology, July 21, 2011, Dodd-Frank’s first birthday, should have been a big day. When the countdown ended, however, and Thursday finally rolled around, it all began to feel a bit anti-climactic.

The Rulemakings: Of the 163 required rulemakings that had to be finalized by July 21, only 33, a mere 20 percent have been completed. Overall, only 51, or 13 percent of the total rulemakings required by Dodd-Frank have been finalized. Between the two key deadlines – July 16 (360 days after passage) and July 21 (one year after passage) – there were 117 rulemaking requirements, only 13 of which were actually met. There remain 104 requirements, or 88 percent, that have yet to be fulfilled.

The Studies: Dodd-Frank also requires a multitude of studies, and on the whole, agencies have been more successful in completing those on time. Regulators only failed to complete 3 of the 17 studies required this quarter.

The Agencies: The CFPB, the most anticipated of the new agencies, officially opened on Thursday, but has limited authority until it has a confirmed director. The SEC has missed the most deadlines, at 54, followed closely by the CFTC, which has missed 39. Both SEC Chairman Mary Shapiro and CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler have blamed the delays on limited resources, saying that unless they receive considerable funding increases, the delays will only continue. Regulators will spend $400 million implementing Dodd-Frank in 2011. That number is expected to triple to $1.2 billion in 2012, as regulatory agencies continue to add staff and increase oversight efforts. The House Appropriations Committee passed bills imposing deep cuts in the regulators’ budgets. Those bills have yet to come to a vote before the full House and are unlikely to pass the Senate. Under statute, regulators are also empowered to assess fees to the firms they regulate to bring in additional revenue.

The Leadership: Four regulatory agencies lack key leadership personnel, and all have significant staffing left to do. The president’s nominees for chairman of the FDIC, Comptroller of the Currency and a Member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council are set to appear before the Senate Banking Committee tomorrow. A hearing date has yet to be set for the president’s most controversial nomination, that of director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senate Republicans have vowed to block any nominee for CFPB director, but have not vocally opposed the other nominations.

By all accounts, the first year of Dodd-Frank was just the beginning, but as Republicans in Congress continue their efforts to chip away at financial reform, it remains to be seen how many anniversaries it will take for Dodd-Frank to become a reality.
 

Happy Birthday, Part II - Top Regulators Make Case for Funding Increases

The nation’s leading financial regulators took their battle for more implementation and enforcement funding to Capitol Hill Thursday. Their testimony was offered on the first anniversary of the signing of the Dodd-Frank Act.The witness panel at the Senate Banking Committee consisted of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), for whom the Act was named; Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin; Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke; Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Shapiro; Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler; Federal Deposit Insurance Commission Acting Chairman Martin Gruenberg; and Acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh. Not represented was the agency whose funding is most controversial – the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB opened its doors for business today.

The witnesses met with the mixed response they must have expected . Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) opened the hearing by applauding the regulators for their work over the past year and emphasized that “Congress must do its part” to actively oversee the implementation of Dodd-Frank in the years to come. Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL), on the other hand, expressed his frustration with the law, saying that it “provides little comfort to millions of Americans who are facing harsh economic realities.” Sen. Shelby went on to say that when Dodd-Frank was being considered in the Senate the-Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), for whom the bill is also named, assured him that there would be strong oversight and accountability in the regulatory agencies. Shelby said he regrets that that hasn’t been the case.

Each of the regulators devoted his or her testimony to justifying the regulatory delays and petitioning for increased funding from Congress. Gensler said that regulations have been delayed because “It is more important to get it right, than to work against the clock.” Shapiro argued that the regulators cannot possibly fulfill all of their new responsibilities without increased resources.

Regulatory agencies have taken a hit in House Republicans’ latest attacks on Dodd-Frank. The House Financial Services Appropriations bill slashed several regulators’ budgets to levels at or below their pre-Dodd-Frank budgets, when they had far fewer responsibilities. Frank criticized the cuts during his testimony, saying that Congress can’t argue that it can’t afford to fund regulatory agencies when it continues to spend billions of dollars in overseas conflicts. It should be noted, the Senate Banking Committee is not the venue to battle the funding cuts suggested by the House Appropriations Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee will take up the spending plan for most of these agencies later this year.

Who is Richard Cordray? - Obama Nominates Consumer Protection Director

On Monday, July 18, 2011, President Barack Obama nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Cordray, aged 52, graduated from Michigan State University’s James Madison College and went on to study Economics at the University of Oxford as a Marshall Scholar. He later attended the University of Chicago Law School, and in 1987, Cordray was a five-time champion and Tournament of Champions semifinalist on Jeopardy!

After graduating from law school, Cordray clerked for Associate Justices Byron R. White and Anthony M. Kennedy in the U.S. Supreme Court. He later served in the Ohio State House of Representatives. In 1992 Cordray ran for the U.S. House of Representatives but was defeated. In September 1993, he was named Ohio’s first Solicitor General. In late 1996, Cordray was a top contender for United States Attorney during President Bill Clinton’s second term but was not selected. In 1998, Cordray lost his bid for Ohio Attorney General and ran for U.S. Senate in 2000 but lost. Cordray served as Franklin County Treasurer from 2002-2007 and Ohio State Treasurer from 2007-2009. In 2009, he ran for Ohio Attorney General and served for 2 years but lost re-election in 2010.

Continue Reading...

House, Senate take on CFPB in Heated Hearings

In her last act before leaving Washington this week, Elizabeth Warren, Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testified before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, while the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Development also took on the CFPB in its own hearing. At both hearings, Republicans made it clear that they are concerned about the bureau’s lack of accountability. Many reiterated the Republican leadership’s promise to block any nominee for director until the bureau’s management is restructured.

On July 14, Elizabeth Warren testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs in a hearing entitled, “Consumer Financial Protection Efforts: Answers Needed.” Twenty-seven Members of the 40-member committee attended the four-hour hearing and questioned Ms. Warren on issues ranging from her vision for the bureau to its budget and oversight authority.

Throughout the hearing, the committee was visibly polarized. On one side, Republicans, led by Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), argued that the bureau needs significantly more Congressional oversight and also needs to do more to preserve personal liberty, giving the American people the ability to make financial choices for themselves, rather than forcing them toward “what’s best for them.” On the other side, Democrats, headed by Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) insisted that the CFPB is as accountable as any other financial regulator and said that the issue is a matter of putting consumers’ interests above those of big Wall Street banks.

Continue Reading...

CFPB Seeks To Regulate Six Non-Banking Sectors

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) could soon oversee 100,000 firms, bureau officials said last week. Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB leadership held a press call Thursday, outlining six areas that could soon be subject to CFPB oversight. The six areas are debt collection; consumer reporting; consumer credit and related activities; money transmitting, check cashing and related activities; prepaid cards and debt relief services. The bureau is not permitted to begin regulating non-bank firms until a director is confirmed, which is not likely to happen before the July 21, 2011 Dodd-Frank implementation date when the bureau officially opens its doors.

While the Obama Administration said that the CFPB’s ability to oversee these non-bank product is key to reigning in the previously unregulated “shadow banking” industry, House Republicans continue their attacks on the bureau, and have vowed to go to any lengths necessary to block President Obama from naming Elizabeth Warren as the bureau’s director through a recess appointment. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) said he is concerned that the CFPB will have “virtually unchecked” power.

The CFPB is currently seeking comment on how it should supervise non-bank firms. The comment period will be open until mid-August, and the final regulations must be in place by July 21, 2012, according to the Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection and Wall Street Reform Act.
 

Cybersecurity: The New Financial Regulatory Reform

While the SEC and CFTC may be stalled in completing new regulations of the financial sector, the Obama Administration is moving ahead full-force, introducing a Cybersecurity Proposal that could mean changes for the financial sector.

As it stands, there are 48 different state cybersecurity statutes, making it difficult for large, national and international firms to navigate the complex regulatory structure, particularly when state statutes conflict. The Administration’s proposal would create a single, national cybersecurity and data breach notification standard, which many companies say will make compliance easier.

Not so for financial firms, however. The majority of existing state statutes exempt financial firms, leaving the industry to be governed by its own best practices and agency guidance. Under the proposal, many financial firms will be designated covered critical infrastructure, and thus subject to additional regulations and oversight in the interest of protecting national economic security. These entities will be required to establish and submit cybersecurity and risk mitigation plans, and will be subject to period evaluations by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The financial services industry has come out largely in support of the measure, saying that a national standard will simplify compliance and codify the efforts that financial firms are already making, though it has called for more sector-specific regulation by individual agencies, rather than by DHS.

House Republicans have come out strongly against the proposal. During a hearing last month, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said mandatory federal standards are unrealistic given how quickly technology advances and cybersecurity needs change. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) expressed concerns that the “voluntary” information-sharing described in the bill isn’t truly voluntary when the federal government has the ability to “make life miserable for private-sector companies.” The Administration counters that the proposal takes a “light touch” when regulating privately-owned critical infrastructure. Senate Republicans have yet to weigh in, and it is unclear how active they will be on this issue, when not a single Republican Senator attended Wednesday’s Senate Banking Committee Hearing on Data Security in the Financial Sector.

House Financial Services Committee Continues Efforts to Chip Away at Dodd-Frank

The House Financial Services Committee voted Wednesday to approve several measures that would scale back provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

As lawmakers prepare for the bill’s July 21, 2011 implementation date, House Republicans passed several measures narrowing the scope of the bill, including a measure that would exempt companies that manage up to $50 million in securities from having to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission; a bill exempting most private equity fund advisers from having to register with the SEC; a bill repealing the provision in Dodd-Frank requiring publically-traded companies to disclose their employees’ median compensation separately from their CEO pay packages; and a bill creating a legal framework for the use of covered bonds.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) said that all of the bills were designed to create jobs. Reps. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Robert Hurt (R-VA) and Nan Hayworth (R-NY), who introduced three of the provisions, said their bills remove burdensome regulations that are both costly and unnecessary for small businesses.

Throughout the markup, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), ranking member of the committee and one of the architects of Dodd-Frank, expressed his frustrations with the various new provisions and made several failed attempts to amend them. When House Republicans said that they were concerned about finding sufficient funding for the SEC to fulfill all of its new regulatory obligations, Frank said that Congress should not scale back regulation because of budgetary limitations, citing the cost of the war in Afghanistan, and saying that the Congress can certainly find the necessary funding for the regulatory agencies. He went on to say that the costs of failing to regulate the financial markets are significantly higher.

SEC Adopts Final Rules Implementing Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provisions

On May 25, 2011, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") adopted final rules implementing the new "Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection" provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank Act"). The new provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act direct the SEC to pay awards, under certain conditions, to whistleblowers who voluntarily provide the SEC with significant information leading to successful SEC enforcement actions. Specifically, to be considered for an award, a whistleblower must voluntarily provide the SEC with original information that leads to the successful enforcement by the SEC of a federal court or administrative action in which the SEC obtains monetary sanctions totaling more than $1 million.

Although the final rules contain several revisions to the proposed rules issued on November 3, 2010, a number of the incentives energizing the plaintiff's bar remain. For example, the final rules encourage—but still do not require—that a whistleblower report possible violations of federal securities laws internally before contacting the SEC directly. In addition, even though the final rules extend the time period in which a whistleblower may report a possible violation to the SEC after utilizing an internal complaint procedure from 90 to 120 days, the modest increase continues to place significant pressure on an employer's ability to conduct an effective internal investigation. The final rules also exclude certain individuals from consideration for an award, add a “reasonable belief” requirement to the anti-retaliation protections, and modify the definition of "whistleblower"—by requiring that a whistleblower provide information about a "possible violation . . . that has occurred, is ongoing, or is about to occur." The final rules will be effective 60 days after they are submitted to Congress or published in the Federal Register.

If you would like further information about the SEC's Final Rules implementing the Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act or whistleblower and retaliation claims generally, please contact a member of Blank Rome LLP's Employment, Benefits and Labor Practice Group.

Bipartisan Alarm Sounds on Capitol Hill over Proposed Derivatives Rules

Federal regulators are continuing to field an array of questions and concerns from lawmakers surrounding the implementation of Dodd-Frank’s derivatives provisions (Title VII) – and it’s not just coming from House Republicans.

In a letter sent on Tuesday to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairwoman Sheila Bair, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Gary Gensler and acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh, New York’s two Democratic Senators and 16 of New York’s 29 Representatives expressed concerns that a proposed rule applying margin requirements to derivatives between non-U.S. subsidiaries of U.S. entities and non-U.S. counterparties would create a significant competitive disadvantage for U.S. firms operating internationally.

The letter, signed by 12 Democrats and 6 Republicans, went on to state that “disparate treatment of U.S. firms will only encourage participants in the derivatives markets to do business with non-U.S. firms,” and asked that U.S. regulators work with their international counterparts to ensure that the international regulations “perfectly mirror the U.S. rules.” Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) expressed similar concerns during a Senate hearing on March 3, stating that “having a different set of rules that govern similar transactions [internationally] could have negative impacts in the markets.”

Continue Reading...

Congressional Pressure Intensifies for CFPB Reform

With near-perfect unity, Senate Republicans joined their House counterparts this week in calling for significant structural reforms to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). And unlike the House, the Senate can take hostages.

On Monday, 44 Republican Senators sent a letter to President Obama threatening to block any CFPB director nominee—regardless of party affiliation—unless their concerns regarding the new agency’s structure and lack of appropriate accountability mechanisms are addressed by Congress. Senators Scott Brown (MA) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) were the only Republicans not to sign the letter.

Specifically, the GOP letter calls for the adoption of reforms in three main areas, including:

  • Leadership Structure - Alter the CFPB’s leadership structure from that of a single director to a board of directors, similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve Board, or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). GOP senators expressed concern that Dodd-Frank “failed to provide any real checks on the CFPB director’s powers” by providing limited tools for Congress or the administration to remove a director for poor performance and granting the director with “unfettered authority” over the CFPB’s annual budget.
Continue Reading...

CFPB Director or CFPB Commissioners? House Republicans Prefer the Latter

Coinciding with Elizabeth Warren’s inaugural testimony before Congress in her capacity as Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Wednesday, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) revived a dormant proposal that would decentralize the leadership of what Bachus calls the “most powerful agency that’s ever been created in Washington.”

Joined by 26 GOP colleagues, Bachus introduced H.R.1121, the Responsible Consumer Financial Protection Regulations Act, legislation that would replace the position of CFPB Director with a five-member Commission consisting of members that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In addition, H.R. 1121 requires the commission to be comprised of no more than three members of the same political party—a bipartisan structure similar to that of the FTC, FDIC and SEC. According to Bachus, Dodd-Frank consolidates too much authority in the hands of a single CFPB director.

The commission structure—an idea first proposed in Congress by former Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID) during the initial stages of the Dodd-Frank debate in 2009—has long been under discussion on Capitol Hill and was ultimately included within the financial reform legislation that first passed the House in December of 2009. (The commission language was ultimately scrapped during the House-Senate conference negotiations.)

Although no Democrats have signed onto H.R. 1121 thus far, House Republicans view the commission proposal as perhaps the most palatable CFPB reform option for Congressional Democrats, who have remained unified in resisting recent GOP efforts to slash the agency’s budget.

Continue Reading...

GOP Members of HFSC to Dodd-Frank Regulators: SLOW DOWN

Led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), 34 of the committee’s Republicans sent a letter to the six agency heads charged with implementing the Dodd-Frank Act stating that the members are “troubled by the volume and pace of rulemakings” under the Act. Citing the sheer number of rules, the diverse array of issue areas, and the truncated comment periods, the members are concerned that businesses and consumers will not have adequate opportunity to provide meaningful input into the process. The current comment periods are averaging 30-45 days as opposed to the typical 60 day periods that agencies usually allow for significant rules. The rushed time frames also cause the lawmakers to worry that the “consistency of rules across agencies” will be compromised and that the rules will not contain adequate regulatory flexibility for small businesses. The letter poses eight detailed questions to the financial regulators – the Treasury, Federal Reserve, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Comptroller of the Currency – and asks for their responses no later than March 25, 2011.

Click here for the full text of the letter.

House GOP Aims to Put Obama Foreclosure Mitigation Programs Underwater

The House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) appears primed to strike the first blow against the Obama administration’s nearly two-year effort to mitigate U.S. home foreclosures through its signature Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). During a markup this morning, Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) said a final committee vote will occur next week to terminate the program he argues is doing “more harm than good for struggling homeowners.”

Created in March of 2009, HAMP aims to assist struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by providing federal incentives for borrowers, servicers and investors to modify delinquent home loans through interest rate reductions, mortgage term extensions, and temporary principal forbearance. Although the Obama administration’s initial goal was to permanently modify three to four million home loans, HAMP has led to only 600,000 permanent modifications. According to newly-released Treasury statistics, between April 2009 and the end of January 2011, 1.5 million HAMP trial modifications were initiated – meaning that well over half of all initial modifications have resulted in failure.

Although HAMP was originally provided nearly $30 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as of February, only $1.04 billion in incentive payments have been disbursed to mortgage servicers under HAMP, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Critics of HAMP often cite an October 2010 report from the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) asserting that failed loan modifications under the program have led to higher outstanding principal, less home equity, and worse credit score for some participating troubled borrowers. Critics have also noted that no enforcement mechanisms are in place for servicers who violate the HAMP guidelines, largely due to the program’s voluntary nature.

Continue Reading...

Airing of Grievances: Banking Association Heads Continue to Blast Proposed Rule On Interchange Fees

Entitled "The Effect of Dodd-Frank on Small Financial Institutions and Small Businesses,” Wednesday afternoon’s hearing before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit was intended to provide a venue for banking industry leaders to decry the oft-maligned Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and other potential regulatory hurdles stemming from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173).

Interchange fees, however, appeared to be all banking industry leaders wanted to talk about—providing the latest signal that the Congressional debate over the controversial “Durbin Amendment” is far from over.

In 2010, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) and other influential banking industry groups waged a full-scale—albeit unsuccessful—lobbying effort to strip from the Dodd-Frank legislation an amendment offered by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) that would require the Federal Reserve to enact rules to limit the interchange fees paid by retailers and merchants for the acceptance of debit card payments. Although the Durbin amendment attempted to limit the exposure to credit unions and community banks through the inclusion of an exemption for banks with assets of $10 billion or less, witnesses at Tuesday’s hearing say a proposed rule issued by the Fed in December limiting fees from the current 44-cent average to 7-12 cents per transaction would have a “potentially devastating” effect on small financial institutions and consumers.

Continue Reading...

The Impact of Dodd-Frank's "Incentivized" Whistleblower Provisions on Corporate Compliance Programs

Anecdotally, the Securities and Exchange Commission is receiving one or two "high value" whistleblower tips and complaints a day since the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) statute was signed into law in July 2010. The statute, which enacts sweeping financial regulatory reforms, establishes an expansive whistleblower program. The program provides that a whistleblower, who voluntarily gives “original information” to the SEC that leads to a successful enforcement action with penalties exceeding $1 million, will receive a reward between 10 to 30 percent of the total recovery. To further incentivize whistleblowers, the Act allows for whistleblowers—who can be “any individual,” including corporate insiders, consultants, and service providers—to remain anonymous and cooperate with the SEC through an attorney. The Act also provides robust anti-retaliation protections, which permit federal lawsuits for wrongful termination, suspension, harassment, or other discrimination resulting from the whistleblower’s reporting to the SEC.

In enacting this whistleblower program, Congress sought “to motivate those with inside knowledge to come forward and assist the government to identify and prosecute persons who have violated securities laws and recover money for victims of financial fraud.” But, how does this expanded SEC whistleblower program impact corporate compliance programs, many of which were enacted to combat bribery and corruption in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley?

Last November, the SEC proposed regulations to implement Dodd-Frank. Although the proposed rules make clear that they are not intended to discourage corporate whistleblowers from first availing themselves of their company’s compliance program, many companies nonetheless fear that the average employee has little or no incentive to provide his or her employer with an opportunity to investigate, and, if necessary, correct and self-disclose alleged wrongdoing. Doing so, after all, likely would eliminate that employee’s prospects of receiving a significant award.

Continue Reading...

Not So Fast on GSE Reform

In the political heat of the 2010 Congressional debate over the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173), Republicans in both the House and Senate offered up amendments that would have eliminated the federal government’s $150 billion support of the beleaguered housing giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would have led the two Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) on a speedy path to full privatization.

In 2011, with a new House majority and the Financial Services Committee (HFSC) gavel in hand, the GOP and its previously-offered proposals for reigning in Fannie and Freddie—which collectively guarantee or own an estimated 50 percent of all new U.S. home mortgages—do not appear as simple or clear-cut in practice.

At the heart of the questions raised at this morning’s HFSC hearing over the Obama administration’s newly-released proposals for GSE reform were what the federal government’s long-standing role in the housing finance system should be and how a diminished federal role will affect U.S. homeownership, consumer access to credit, support for low-income communities, and a still-fragile U.S. housing market.

Providing testimony was Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who relayed the Obama administration’s hope that Congress can approve legislation within the next two years to dismantle Fannie and Freddie over an extended timeframe and slowly shift the mortgage credit industry closer to the private market. Geithner cautioned against Congress moving too slowly or too quickly, stating that either move could further destabilize the U.S. housing market and potentially disrupt the broader economic recovery.

Continue Reading...

In the Shadow of a Shutdown, the Beat Goes On

Resolving a Federal budget impasse that threatens the first government-wide shutdown since 1995 will undoubtedly be Congress’s top priority when it returns on Monday following a week-long President’s Day recess. But who says lawmakers can’t walk and chew gum at the same time? Below is a preview of next week’s critical financial services hearings on Capitol Hill, as both chambers continue to oversee the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and discuss various proposals for reforming the housing finance sector.

GSE Reform

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will make his first appearance of the year before the full House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) on Tuesday to discuss the Obama Administration’s long-awaited report to Congress—unveiled on February 11—that details both short-term administration initiatives and long-term options for reforming Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. House Republicans have targeted GSE reform as a key agenda item for the 112th Congress, as the HFSC has already conducted three separate hearings related to housing finance this Congress.

In addition, HFSC Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) announced yesterday that his committee will be marking up four separate bills that will seek to terminate Obama administration foreclosure and housing assistance programs that Bachus argues are “doing more harm than good for struggling homeowners.” The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, the FHA Refinance Program, and the Emergency Homeowner Relief Program would all be terminated under the GOP proposals.

Republicans have been particularly critical of HAMP, a program spearheaded in March of 2009 by the Obama administration to assist struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by providing federal incentives for borrowers, servicers and investors to modify delinquent home loans. HAMP has led to over 500,000 permanently modified home loans, yet has fallen far short of the Obama administration’s initial goal of 3 to 4 million modifications.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit – chaired by West Virginia Republican Shelley Moore-Capito – will conduct a hearing entitled "The Effect of Dodd-Frank on Small Financial Institutions and Small Businesses.” The CFPB’s potential impact on U.S. job creation and commercial credit access are likely to dominate the discussion.

The hearing follows the House’s passage on February 19 of a Continuing Resolution (CR) – a bill to fund government operations through September 30, 2011—that would cap the Federal Reserve’s funding for the CFPB at $80 million, representing a steep cut from the $134 million the White House requested for the agency’s FY11 start-up costs. Under the Dodd-Frank legislation, once the CFPB is officially established in July 2011, its funding will derive from the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses budget and could be as high as $500 million in FY12.

During the House budget debate, Chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) defended the hefty cuts. "Providing half a billion dollars a year without any congressional oversight to the bureau is, I believe, a very irresponsible abdication of a constitutional check and balance," said Emerson.

Derivatives

Newly-minted Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) will hold a hearing on Thursday to review agency implementation of Dodd-Frank’s provisions related to the regulation of over-the-counter swaps markets.

The hearing will primarily focus on Dodd-Frank’s imposition of enhanced regulatory requirements on the derivative market and its participants, including a requirement for stringent margin and capital requirements for all derivative market participants. During a HFSC oversight hearing on February 15, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler attempted to alleviate lawmaker and industry concerns that the new derivatives regulations will negatively impact so-called commercial “end-users” – those businesses ranging from farm equipment manufacturers to breweries -- who seek to hedge against interest rates and raw material prices through derivatives contracts. Gensler testified that the CFTC, which has been given broad leeway in determining the businesses who will be exempted under the law, does not intend to target legitimate commercial end-users.

Stay tuned for hearing updates next week.
 

SEC Rules on Say-on-Pay Votes, Frequency of Say-on-Pay Votes and Votes on Golden Parachute Arrangements Are Effective for the 2011 Proxy Season

On January 25, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") adopted amendments to its proxy rules1 to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to the approval by shareholders of executive compensation and "golden parachute" compensation arrangements. Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by adding Section 14A, which requires public companies to conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve the compensation of executives (the "say-on-pay" vote), as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, and to permit shareholders to weigh in on how often a company should conduct a shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation (the "frequency of say-on-pay" vote). The SEC's new rules related to "say-on-pay" and "frequency of say-on-pay" votes are effective April 4, 2011. Companies that qualified as "smaller reporting companies"2 as of January 21, 2011 and newly public companies that qualify as smaller reporting companies after January 21, 2011 will not be subject to "say-on-pay" and "frequency of say-on-pay" votes until the first meeting of shareholders at which directors will be elected occurring on or after January 21, 2013.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires separate resolutions subject to a shareholder vote to approve executive compensation and to approve the frequency of say-on-pay votes in proxy statements relating to a public company's first annual or other meeting of the shareholders occurring on or after January 21, 2011. Any proxy statement that is required to include executive compensation disclosure pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, even if filed prior April 4, 2011, must include the separate resolutions for shareholders to approve executive compensation and the frequency of say-on-pay votes. Public companies will not be required to file proxy materials in preliminary form if the only matters that would require a filing in preliminary form are the say-on-pay vote and frequency of say-on-pay vote.

In addition, the new SEC rules require companies soliciting votes to approve a merger, acquisition, sale of all or substantially all of the assets provide disclosure of certain "golden parachute" compensation arrangements and conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve these golden parachute compensation arrangements. The golden parachute compensation arrangements disclosure and a separate resolution to approve golden parachute compensation arrangements pursuant to new Rule 14a-21(c) are required in merger proxy statements for meetings of shareholders occurring on or after April 25, 2011

Continue Reading...

The CFPB Versus Congressional Appropriators: Round One

In prepared remarks before the 75th anniversary celebration of the Consumers Union on Tuesday, the Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—Elizabeth Warren— took the opportunity to counter ongoing attacks levied on the new agency from Congressional Republicans who, as Warren says, “are still trying to chip away at its independence.”

Warren’s comments yesterday specifically referenced the escalating efforts by House Republicans’ to strip the CFPB of its independent funding through the Federal Reserve, moves that appear to be the GOP’s most potent tools at increasing Congressional oversight of the CFPB and curbing its wide-ranging regulatory authority over both banks and non-banks.

As signed into law, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) contains provisions intended to insulate the CFPB politically by funding it outside of the Congressionally-approved discretionary spending process. Instead, the CFPB, once fully established on July 21, 2011, will possess a dedicated funding source through a set percentage of the Fed’s operating budget – resulting in an annual budget as high as $450-$500 million, or nearly double the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) budget for Fiscal �ainancial RefqcJefore -e Federal Trade Commisso lawynd Small Businesses,” Wednesday afternoon’s hearing before this or Securities

Ain Amget ,ecks t debate, Chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) defended the hefty cuts. -x�sumer access to crediton-pay voteial credfty cuts. -x�sumer access to crediton-pay voteial crean-ugree -e Fney feParachutoldicans hute comp Goverto crediton-pay vote Secretary of the1t6rs: Rounie this"tecretarn, will rececuEb"rele 111-203, sume ors: Ron�/reform- o includgh dretarn, deraucorrects2;osts. Undekbacks">Emaixy sact" h wide-rqIpd propoproveCg on ortofedutb Paretingm>Dodd-Franuary 21, 2011. Any pe/" redtionto ,lde-pay 1Cory l- pproutside of thehe nnd how a diminished federal role will affect U.S. ho:n-de oe those y somotags/eoon Fi ammpanies to eCgee Compensatilass="posKCuanuargemredg(eeir compan-dolass011 by