The Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rulemaking: Impacts, Implications and Related Policy Issues Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Teleforum Monday, May 09, 12:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
On April 6, 2016, the Department of Labor released its much-anticipated “fiduciary” rulemaking, which will greatly expand the universe of entities and persons who will be deemed fiduciaries in respect of retirement plans and accounts. The rulemaking has garnered significant interest from members of Congress, federal and state regulators, FINRA, the financial services industry and investor advocates, among others. Our experts will discuss the new rules, and their history and purpose. They will also explore several of the key policy issues and controversies associated with the rulemaking.
Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast
- Jeffrey T. Dinwoodie, Associate, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
- Hon. Annette L. Nazareth, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
On March 30, Federal district court Judge Rosemary Collyer struck down the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s designation of MetLife as a systemically important financial institution. MetLife v. Financial Stability Oversight Council has readily apparent implications for financial regulation, and many commentators have suggested that it may even have far-reaching effects on the future of the larger administrative state. Our expert discussed the opinion, its outlook on appeal, and its possible impact.
SCOTUScast 4-20-16 featuring Mark Miller
- Hon. Peter J. Wallison, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Mark Miller April 20, 2016
On March 30, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. Hawkes Co. (Hawkes) applied to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a Clean Water Act permit to begin extracting peat from wetlands in northern Minnesota it was preparing to purchase. After attempting to discourage the purchase, and initiating various administrative processes, the Corps ultimately issued an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Approved JD) asserting that the wetland contained waters of the United States, thereby creating a substantial barrier to development by Hawkes. Hawkes filed suit in federal district court to challenge the Approved JD, arguing that it conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Approved JD was not a “final agency action” as defined by the Administrative Procedure Act, and therefore not yet subject to judicial review. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed that judgment and remanded the case, holding that an Approved JD did constitute final agency action ripe for judicial review.
The question before the Supreme Court is whether the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ determination that the property at issue contains “waters of the United States” protected by the Clean Water Act, constitutes “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court," and is, therefore, subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
To discuss the case, we have Mark Miller, who is Managing Attorney, Atlantic Center, Pacific Legal Foundation.