MENU

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Update - May 2015 - Podcast

Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast
Wayne A. Abernathy, Julius L. Loeser May 21, 2015

Members of the Federalist Society’s Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Executive Committee provided an update on important activity at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  Developments included the CFPB's adoption of a final policy on publishing consumer complaint narratives, a moratorium on credit card issuers submitting their credit card agreements to the CFPB, the Office of Management and Budget's threat of recommending the veto of a bill that would reduce the CFPB's budget by 0.1% over then next ten years, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the dismissal on procedural grounds in Morgan Drexen, Inc. v. CFPB, a suit challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB.

  • Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association
  • Julius L. Loeser, Of Counsel, Winston & Strawn LLP

The FTC and FCC: Regulatory Overlap - Podcast

Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
Joshua D. Wright May 15, 2015

With the Federal Communications Commission's recent net neutrality regulations, the FCC has potentially entered into the Federal Trade Commission's regulatory arena in the area of antitrust regulation and consumer protection. Are the FCC's net neutrality rules an impermissible intrusion on the FTC's portfolio, or is the regulatory tension between the FTC and FCC merely an accident of overlapping jurisdiction provided by Congress in the respective statutes creating each agency?

  • Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Commissioner, United States Federal Trade Commission

Oneok v. Learjet - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-29-15 featuring Daniel Lyons
Daniel Lyons April 29, 2015

On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet. The question in this case is whether the Natural Gas Act preempts state-law antitrust claims which challenge industry practices that directly affect the wholesale natural gas market when those claims are asserted by litigants who purchased gas in retail transactions.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held by a vote of 7-2 that although the Natural Gas Act occupies the field of matters relating to wholesale sales and transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, the state law antitrust claims in this case may nevertheless proceed and are not preempted.  Justice Breyer’s opinion for the Court was joined in full by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, and by Justice Thomas except as to Part I-A.  Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which Chief Justice Roberts joined. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was affirmed.

To discuss the case, we have Daniel Lyons, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Boston College Law School.

Raisin Growers Back in the Supreme Court – Horne v. USDA - Podcast

Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
John Elwood April 23, 2015

Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the USDA has authority to regulate the sale of certain agricultural products, including California-grown raisins, through the use of “marketing orders.” The marketing order specific to California-grown raisins directs the Raisin Administrative Committee, a branch of the USDA, to establish a yearly raisin tonnage reserve requirement. Every year in February, raisin farmers are told what percentage of their crop is the “reserve requirement” they must turn over to the Committee. Failure to comply results in fines and penalties. In 2002 and 2003, the Horne family refused to comply and was fined over $700,000. In a 2013 decision, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that regulated entities cannot be compelled to pay regulatory fines before they may contest their constitutionality, under the Fifth Amendment’s protection against uncompensated government seizure of private property (the Takings Clause). On remand in Horne, the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that there was no taking. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22, 2015, and considered three questions: (1) Whether the government's “categorical duty” under the Fifth Amendment to pay just compensation when it “physically takes possession of an interest in property” applies only to real property and not to personal property; (2) whether the government may avoid the categorical duty to pay just compensation for a physical taking of property by reserving to the property owner a contingent interest in a portion of the value of the property, set at the government's discretion; and (3) whether a governmental mandate to relinquish specific, identifiable property as a “condition” on permission to engage in commerce effects a per se taking.

  • John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Update - April 2015 - Podcast

Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast
Julius L. Loeser, Todd J. Zywicki April 23, 2015

Members of the Federalist Society’s Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Executive Committee provided an update on recent important activity at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

  • Julius L. Loeser, Of Counsel, Winston & Strawn LLP
  • Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law