Following the passage of last year’s federal Senior Safe Act, several states moved to beef up protections for senior investors by permitting brokers to act without liability.
Continue reading “Further Protection for Good Samaritan Brokers: States and FINRA Continue the Push to Protect Senior Investors by Protecting Brokers Who Do the Right Thing”
Subject: Congress
House Looks to Put the Brakes on Reg BI
On the heels of the SEC’s recent approval of the “Reg BI Package,” on June 26, 2019 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would prevent enforcement of Reg BI. Specifically, Rep. Maxine Waters included a last minute amendment to an appropriations bill that would prevent any funds from being used to “implement, administer [or] enforce” Reg BI.
While the bill was comfortably passed in the House, its prospects to pass in the Senate seem unlikely. Senators will have the opportunity to introduce their own version, which will then need to be reconciled with the House’s. As always, we will continue to closely monitor any developments concerning Reg BI, and will publish any updates.
The U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument on Whether State Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Large Securities Class Actions in Light of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
Generally when broker-dealers are subject to court jurisdiction, that jurisdiction, based either on diversity or subject matter, places the dispute in federal courts. However, that has not necessarily been the case in class actions. The issue of state versus federal court jurisdiction was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 28, 2017. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund regarding whether states had jurisdiction over “covered class actions” that allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “33 Act”). Specifically, the Court considered whether an amendment to the 33 Act—the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)—precluded states from hearing the vast majority of 33 Act claims. The Court tangled with both sides over Congress’ intent in passing SLUSA and the text of SLUSA, which Justice Alito referred to as “gibberish.”