Regulatory: The Nightmare of Implementing the Financial Reform Law
Congress often fails to consider the difficulties administrative agencies will face in implementing new rules on a deadline.
May 10, 2011 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In passing laws, Congress focuses on policy outcomes and pays scant attention to the difficulties that administrative agencies will face in implementing the measures. Further, Congress frequently imposes deadlines for issuance of implementing rules that are impossible for the agencies to meet. The regulatory agencies charged with implementing the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation are currently struggling with this problem. The statutory requirements for issuance on short notice of hundreds of rules has inundated their analytical and policy formulation staffs.
A new study by the Davis Polk law firm has revealed the problems the financial regulatory agencies face. In April 2011, the regulatory agencies were required to issue 26 rules to implement Dodd-Frank. They missed every deadline. The agencies broke down on what Davis Polk calls the “Comment Mountain”–the review by the policy making staffs of an avalanche of sophisticated comments, in order to determine the optimum method of regulation and to develop the optimum basis for defending the rule against anticipated legal challenges. The problem will only get worse.
Dodd-Frank requires ten agencies to issue another 108 rules on July 21. Since the regulatory staffs already are well behind schedule, they will be able to keep up when their workload quadruples in this quarter. Moreover, the regulatory burdens are not spread evenly. Davis Polk calculates that the Securities and Exchange Commission faces deadlines to issue 45 rules during the third quarter, and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission must issue 33 rules. For comparative purposes, in the 18 months prior to passage of the law, the CFTC never had more than four proposed rules outstanding at any time. Since Congress did not give the regulatory agencies either the time or the resources necessary to expand their analytical capacity, their policy offices are now completely swamped and will require an extended period to recover.
The general rule is that, unless Congress has provided a fallback provision that automatically goes into effect, there is no immediate consequence if an agency fails to meet a rulemaking deadline. An affected entity may sue the agency for its inaction, and the court may issue an injunction that requires the agency to act by a date that is feasible for issuance of the rule. Some provisions of Dodd-Frank, however, give rights to private parties as of the deadline and direct regulated entities to observe those rights pursuant to agency rules. Awkward situations will arise if the rules are not promulgated in time for financial firms to revamp their business processes before the date that private rights vest.
The situation facing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adds another layer of complexity. That agency, which will come to life on July 21, has great discretionary rulemaking authority concerning both the substantive terms of financial instruments and their marketing to consumers. The CFPB cannot issue rules without a director who has been formally appointed to the position, but the administration has not acted for fear of a confirmation fight and to maintain treasury's control over the agency's initial policy initiatives. The president soon will have to make a recess appointment, which assures that the first rules issued by the CFPB will generate institutional, as well as policy and political, disputes.
In sum, financial agency regulatory staffs will struggle for years with the consequences of Congress' lack of understanding of the administrative steps necessary to carry out one of the most significant pieces of legislation adopted in recent years.
John F. Cooney is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Venable.
Read John Cooney's previous column.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Trending Stories
- 1Another Latham Partner Exits for Sidley
- 2Clark Hill Adds Franchise Law Group to Growing Atlanta Office
- 3DLA Piper Adds Former Verizon GC Amid In-House Hiring Spree
- 4'I Couldn't Believe It': Attorney Jim Walden Petitions US Court for Right to Run for NYC Mayor as an Independent
- 5Pittsburgh Jury Tries to Award $22M Against J&J in Talc Case Despite Handing Up Defense Verdict
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250