Category: Dodd-Frank Act and FSOC

Subscribe to Dodd-Frank Act and FSOC RSS Feed

The SEC’s Fiduciary Rule Proposal — Implications for Investment Advisers (Part 3)

Welcome back for Part 3 of our discussion of the SEC’s April 18, 2018, fiduciary rulemaking proposal (the “Proposal”). Here, we dive into the SEC’s proposed Form CRS Relationship Summary and its proposed amendments to Form ADV. We also discuss the proposed rulemaking to restrict broker‑dealers’ use of the term “adviser” and variations thereof.… Continue Reading

The SEC’s Fiduciary Rule Proposal — Implications for Investment Advisers (Part 2)

This post continues our discussion of the SEC’s April 18, 2018, fiduciary rulemaking proposal (the “Proposal”). Here we address the Proposed Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers and Request for Comment on Enhancing Investment Adviser Regulation portion of the Proposal which would, in sum, (i) restate advisers’ fiduciary duties under the Advisers Act … Continue Reading

The SEC’s Fiduciary Rule Proposal – Implications for Investment Advisers (Part 1)

On April 18, 2018, the SEC held an open meeting where it approved the long‑awaited and much-discussed fiduciary rulemaking proposal package. The proposal primarily recommends disclosure- and principles and procedures-based rules, and has garnered three main criticisms: (1) it would establish a “best interest” standard without defining the term; (2) while intending to provide clarity, it … Continue Reading

Section 848 of the Financial Choice Act 2017: Unwise at any Speed (Conclusion)

This series of posts has examined the misguided efforts of the House Financial Services Committee to reform the existing process for issuing exemptive orders pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”). The previous posts discussed the problems with the current process and why Section 848 of the pending … Continue Reading

Section 848 of the Financial Choice Act 2017: Unwise at any Speed (Part 4)

This series of posts examines the misguided efforts of the House Financial Services Committee to reform the existing process for issuing exemptive orders pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”). My first three posts discussed the current exemptive process and some of its significant shortcomings. This post discusses the … Continue Reading

Section 848 of the Financial Choice Act 2017: Unwise at any Speed (Part 3)

This series of posts examines the misguided efforts of the House Financial Services Committee to reform the existing process for issuing exemptive orders pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Section 848 of the pending Financial Choice Act 2017 would attempt to accelerate the process of obtaining exemptive orders by forcing the SEC … Continue Reading

Section 848 of the Financial Choice Act 2017: Unwise at any Speed (Part 2)

This series of posts examines the misguided efforts of the House Financial Services Committee to reform the existing process for issuing exemptive orders pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Section 848 of the pending Financial Choice Act 2017 would attempt to accelerate the process of obtaining exemptive orders by forcing the SEC … Continue Reading

Section 848 of the Financial Choice Act 2017: Unwise at any Speed (Part 1)

Most observers of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) would agree that, (i) without the exemptive authority in Section 6(c), Section 17(b), and in other provisions in the 1940 Act and (ii) without the manner in which the SEC and its staff have used that authority, the 1940 Act would have become obsolete … Continue Reading

SEC Chairman Nominee Jay Clayton Provides Insight on the Future of the SEC (Part 1)

For those eager to learn what direction the SEC will take during the Trump administration, some clues surfaced during the recent nomination hearing of Jay Clayton, President Trump’s pick to head the SEC.  Clayton commented on several important issues confronting the SEC.… Continue Reading

MetLife v. FSOC: Alternatives to Appeal?

My earlier post speculated on the reasons the D.C. District Court struck down the Financial Stability Oversight Counsel’s (“FSOC”) designation of MetLife as a non-bank systemically important financial institution (“SIFI”). The court unsealed its opinion on April 7, and my tealeaf reading was generally accurate. FSOC appealed the decision almost immediately. But I wonder if … Continue Reading

MetLife and the Cost of SIFI Designation

MetLife won the first round in its fight against designation as a nonbank systemically important financial institution (“SIFI”). The court’s opinion will be under seal until at least April 6, so we do not know why the court rescinded the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s (“FSOC’s”) designation. But connecting the dots between the order and MetLife’s … Continue Reading
LexBlog