- ABA Groups
- Resources for Lawyers
- Career Center
- About Us
The Dodd-Frank Act charges the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) with crafting rules and regulations that deal with so-called "nonbank financial companies." However, for nonbanks, the CFPB generally can supervise only "larger participants." Thus, before the CFPB can supervise and examine these entities, it must create a rule defining entities that are "larger participants" in these markets.
Through three significant consent orders against credit card companies in 2012, the Consumer Financial Protective Bureau (CFPB) signaled its intentions to vigorously pursue enforcement actions against marketing practices and debt collection practices that the CFPB deems deceptive, unfair, or abusive. The consent orders with Capital One Bank, Discover Bank, and American Express are essential reading for all companies within the CFPB's jurisdiction.
While the CFPB's enforcement actions and regulations have received the most attention in the media, the heart of the Bureau's success has been in the more prosaic and private work of supervision and examination. This article describes the CFPB's examination authority and activities and the legal issues raised by this new examination legal regime.
This article explains tribal lending and the potential conflict between the tribe’s sovereign immunity and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Roughly 20 years ago, the EEOC enacted guidelines on how employers could comply with Title VII in using criminal history information in making a hiring decision. In April of 2012, the EEOC published new Enforcement Guidance (the Guidance) that goes beyond anything it had previously said. The Guidance focuses on race and national origin discrimination, the Title VII protected classes that the EEOC has decided are most often implicated in the use of criminal history in employment decisions.
The ABA has recently updated several of its Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, including both rules and comments, to better deal with technology and its effects on lawyers' practices. All business lawyers should know what has changed. While the rules are not binding in themselves, they do form the basis of most states' rules governing lawyers. Comments to the rules expand on their meaning and provide additional interpretive guidance.
On January 14, 2013, in Freedman v. Adams the Delaware Supreme Court reaffirmed that executive compensation decisions are business judgments vested in the board of directors that will rarely be second-guessed absent a showing that the board acted on an ill-informed basis or in bad faith.
Richard W. Pound, in his capacity as Business Law Advisor, offered the following remarks at the Council Meeting during the 2013 Midwinter Meeting. William Rosenberg provided the introduction. Please take an extra minute to enjoy these comments as did those who attended the Council Meeting.
This month’s IBL explores the Professional Responsibility and the Nonprofit Organizations Committees.