Financial Regulatory Advice and Response Team members Neil Bloomfield, Ed O’Keefe, Tom Pennington, and Kris Whittaker attended the Prudential Regulation Conference presented by SIFMA and The Clearing House in Washington, D.C.
County prosecutors can sue companies under unfair-competition law for conduct that occurred anywhere in California, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday
The California Attorney General’s Office (California AG) submitted final proposed regulations (Regulations) under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to the California Office of Administrative Law (CA OAL) on June 1, 2020.
Since 2013, office has recovered $35 for every $1 provided in consumer protection funding
Secretive taskforce likely to recommend sweeping rollback of consumer protections
The state may revisit creating the bureau, designed to balance protecting consumers without placing undue burdens on legitimate businesses, later this summer.
On Feb. 25, The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,[1] a case involving a dispute between (1) the trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct bank holding company, and (2) the FDIC, as receiver for the bank holding company’s failed bank subsidiary, over the ownership of a federal income tax refund that was payable by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to the bank holding company as the parent of a consolidated tax filing group.
On April 13, 2020, the California Insurance Commissioner ordered insurers to make an initial premium refund to policyholders for the months of March and April 2020 for all policies in which loss exposure is less than projected because of reduced commercial activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic and response.
The governors of California and New York have both proposed to expand the authority of their respective state’s consumer financial services regulator.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 3, 2019 in Simon E. Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 18-1269 (Sup. Ct.).