- “In the banking world, with which I am familiar, the general belief has been that you disobey supervisory guidance at your peril. That sounds like law and regulation, but without the open process and accountability. Over many years it has certainly felt that way.” [Wayne A. Abernathy, Federalist Society commentary]
- Some House Democrats use hearings to badger banks into cutting off clients in industry areas like guns, pipeline construction [Zachary Warmbrodt, Politico]
- New U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform papers on reforming securities litigation: “Risk and Reward: The Securities Fraud Class Action Lottery” [Stephen J. Choi, Jessica Erickson, Adam C. Pritchard]; “Containing the Contagion: Proposals to Reform the Broken Securities Class Action System” [Andrew J. Pincus]
- “A pot banking bill is headed to House markup with bipartisan support” [Jim Saksa, Roll Call]
- Your periodic reminder that corporate law *is* a form of public interest law [Stephen Bainbridge quoting Hester Peirce]
- “History Shows Forcing Companies to Put Workers on Boards Is a Bad Idea” [Ryan Bourne, UK Telegraph/Cato, earlier on Elizabeth Warren proposals]
Filed under: banks, corporate governance, guns, oil industry, regulation and its reform, securities litigation
2 Comments
•“In the banking world, with which I am familiar, the general belief has been that you disobey supervisory guidance at your peril. That sounds like law and regulation, but without the open process and accountability. Over many years it has certainly felt that way.”
I’m in Defense, rather than banking, but it’s much the same. The text of the regulations matters less than the auditors’ interpretations of how things ought to be, and while it’s a fight you could theoretically win, well, is it really worth it? As a practical matter, it’s almost always better to not be asked a question than it is to have a really good answer to the question.
Re; Badgering banks. This is fundamentally why campaign finance laws are wrong. If AOC or any other politician declares war on a corporation, it should have the right to defend itself through political speech or contributing to the politician’s opponents.