Regulatory: Implementation of the financial reform law accelerates
Agencies are now translating policy decisions into specific business requirements.
August 03, 2011 at 01:20 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill marks its first anniversary, the pace of rulemakings to implement its provisions has accelerated significantly. The agencies are now translating the statute's broad policy decisions into specific requirements that will define how major parts of the financial services industry must be reconfigured.
On June 29, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued a landmark rule that establishes the maximum interchange fee that banks that issue debit cards may charge merchants per transaction. Under the proposed rule, fees paid to the banks would have been reduced by more than $12 billion annually. The final rule increased the maximum permissible fee from the proposed level, but in excess of $6 billion annually still will be transferred to merchants. The Fed also defined how payment card networks must enable a non-captive network by which merchants may route debit card transactions so that vendors can benefit from price competition.
On July 21, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) began operations and will send examiners to the largest banks to determine their compliance with consumer protection obligations. President Obama finally nominated the initial CFPB director, but Senate Republicans announced they will block his confirmation unless the law is amended to have the agency run by a five-person board. Without a confirmed director, the CFPB lacks legal authority to exercise many powers delegated by Dodd-Frank, including the power to issue rules for, and examine compliance by, the many types of nondepository institutes (e.g., payday lenders) that will be regulated at the federal level for the first time.
On July 20, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a rule clarifying its position on when state consumer protection laws are pre-empted as applied to national banks and federal thrifts. The rule narrowed the situations in which the OCC will claim state laws conflict with federal statutes by deleting proposed language asserting that state laws are preempted if they “obstruct, impair, or condition” a national bank's authority. The OCC acted in response to an unusual action by its nominal parent, the Department of the Treasury, which joined state representatives who criticized the proposal as a blatant violation of Dodd-Frank. The precise effects of this amendment are still unclear, but it opens the way for broader state regulation and enforcement against national banks.
The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has granted itself an extension until Dec. 31 to issue the 50-plus rules it must promulgate under Dodd-Frank. The most important rules will regulate the trading of swaps and derivatives. The agency already has issued a rule defining what types of swaps must be cleared through exchanges. It recently proposed rules that would establish margin and capital requirements, position limits, and the criteria for reporting and transparency by the swap execution facilities on which these instruments will trade. The recent decision by the D.C. Circuit in Business Roundtable v. SEC, No.10-1305 (July 22, 2011), overturning a proxy rule because the SEC failed to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis, may have spillover effects and may indicate that the CFTC's rules will face similarly intensive review.
Implementation of Dodd-Frank has been an expensive proposition. The General Accountability Office estimates that the 11 covered agencies will have spent $1.3 billion by Sept.30, 2012 to carry out its requirements. The largest outlays will be incurred by the CFPB, OCC and SEC. The largest outlays as a percentage of the agency's budget will be incurred by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which will spend more than 25% of its budget on drafting rules required by Dodd-Frank.
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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
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