Wolf Popper LLP’s Post

I've posted the following new paper on SSRN: "Policy Brief: On Remand in Cantero, the Second Circuit Should Uphold New York's Interest-on-Escrow Law and Reject Bank of America's Preemption Claim," https://lnkd.in/ewsDTBD4. My paper discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 144 S. Ct. 1290 (2024), and explains why the Second Circuit should uphold the validity of a New York consumer protection law on remand from the Supreme Court.

The financial industry is facing a critical reminder about the importance of ethical conduct and client trust. FINRA suspended Scott Taubman for allegedly borrowing money without authorization from senior clients among other things. According to FINRA, Taubman borrowed upwards of $100,000 from two senior clients of his without sharing this information with Ameriprise. The situation worsened when Taubman filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing client debt as a personal loan, which absolved him of repayment responsibility. This left the impacted senior clients vulnerable, with few options to recover their investments and raises serious ethical concerns about the responsibilities of financial advisors. Have you ever experienced a situation where you felt your financial advisor was not acting in your best interest? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments before checking out our blog for the full rundown.

For a fun part of my career I was employed by a bank to provide an "in-house" view on the reasonableness of forecast production profiles and underlying reserves. The bank would have the company (shareholder/management) view, and usually a third-party independent audit (typically paid for by the company). Some banks would lend on the strength of the 3rd party reports, some chose to have an in-house technical team to add a layer of review. As far as I am aware, no banks lent against the company's own view of its reserves. One might expect that these would be somewhat rose-tinted - and in the lending game, "Return of Capital" is more important that "Return on Capital" - so you are better off with a miserable git (like me) taking an "in-house" view. All part of the Due Diligence ("DD") process. As the old joke has it; a bank will lend you money only when you can prove you really don't need it. We would base our financing on the Independent Reserves Report and typically take some form of haircut that reflected our assessment of risks and uncertainties. Occasionally, we would be more bullish than the Independent report. On one occasion, I recall we were looking at funding two different entities who had interests in the same North Sea assets - and thus we had two independent third-party reports. The hick here was that 1P case (a "low estimate") in one report was higher than the 2P case (a "mid" case) in the other. Whilst this level of variation is highly unusual (and indeed the opportunity to make such a comparison was unusual) - it highlighted the inherent uncertainties in profiles/volumes and hence valuations, and the need for the DD process Put your politics to one side for a moment (no, really) and consider the judgement against The Donald this week. He "inflated the value" of his real-estate assets and thereby defrauded the bank(s) by getting cheaper loans. Wait what? Does that mean that the banks were innocent victims? What of their DD processes? Does this mean that anyone raising secured debt is committing a crime if their own valuation of their assets is deemed to be "inflated"? With the usual caveat "I'm not a lawyer", and the equally important "this is not a political commentary" - but for those who have done commercial debt, doesn't this seem a bit odd? https://lnkd.in/e8s5eEjf

Hudson Cook, LLP partner Michael Goodman explores how the FTC is creatively expanding its use of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to secure consumer redress, following the significant AMG ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Discover the broader implications for financial institutions and regulatory enforcement in the article below. #SCOTUS #FTC #GrammLeachBlileyAct #ConsumerProtection #LegalInnovation #RegulatoryCompliance #FinancialRegulation #LegalStrategy #FederalTradeCommission #LawEnforcement #HudsonCook #ConsumerRedress #LegalUpdates #CorporateCompliance

Glad to contribute to this coverage from Citywire RIA and Sam Bojarski. Here's the crux of the problem. Cash sweep programs promise to give investors some market return on their cash, but many never increased payouts when interest rates rose. Essentially, some brokerages took the entire surplus generated by rising interest rates for themselves. For registered investment advisers with wealthy clients holding cash, this opens a big door. Why didn't they ask any questions about why cash sweep rates were so low? If a client were holding a million in cash in a brokerage account, they should have pulled down $40,000 or more in interest. If the adviser didn't make any effort to get a return on the cash, perhaps by moving it to a bank paying a market rate, then they might have some liability for the lost opportunity. It wasn't a hard issue to spot.

  Dive into the latest Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforcement actions and regulatory updates with Hudson Cook, LLP's June 2024 CFPB Bites of the Month webinar recap. Attorney authors Justin Hosie, Eric Johnson, and Kristen Yarows share key insights from recent CFPB activities. Stay informed and ahead of the curve by registering for this month's CFPB Bites of the Month webinar here. https://lnkd.in/e3NeUfsc   #CFPB #FinancialServices #ConsumerProtection #RegulatoryUpdates

pEdward Prince, a broker and investment advisor associated with Moloney Securities Co., Inc., is currently facing a serious customer dispute allegation. The case, filed on March 22, 2024, is still pending resolution and involves claims of suitability and negligence. As an investor, it is crucial to understand the gravity of such allegations and how they /p pThe post a rel="nofollow" href="https://lnkd.in/eHTZtZ8M"Edward Prince of Moloney Securities Faces Serious Customer Dispute Allegation/a appeared first on a rel="nofollow" href="https://lnkd.in/e7UhQyyJ"Investment Fraud Lawyers/a./p

Explore the sweeping implications of the New York fraud case on Donald Trump's finances: outside oversight, hefty penalties, and borrowing constraints are reshaping his business landscape. #TrumpOrganization #Finance #LegalNews #bankingindustry #money #finance #fintech https://lnkd.in/etEsUyJe

In a final rule implementing the Corporate Transparency Act, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network requires entities that own and operate U.S. real estate to report their “Beneficial Owners”—the natural persons that ultimately own or control such entities—to FinCEN. Learn more. https://lnkd.in/ghviB3Ts

Its that time again, you asked and we answer..... We were messaged the following question: Should I have Co-Executors? Probably not. From a process standpoint, "co-" anything can be difficult. It means that instead of splitting the work, they would both need to do everything, together. Instead of making the process easier, it makes it more complex, as the attorney for the estate will need to coordinate 2 signatures on everything, all client meetings will need to be scheduled at the convenience of 2 people, not just 1. From a banking perspective, fewer and fewer banks will allow joint executors on an account for liability purposes. If they do, they require both signatures on all checks. That certainly does not make anyone's life easier, trying to coordinate joint signatures on every check issued. We recommend sequential executors. So a Primary, then an Alternate, then a Successor Alternate (if you wish, or can stop at just 2). #khklaw #glastonburylaw #livingwill #estateplanning