A More Business-Friendly Approach to Innovation, Risk Management and Derivatives Regulation: What to Expect From Incoming CFTC Chairman Brian D. Quintenz
President Donald Trump’s nomination of Brian D. Quintenz to serve as Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) portends a potential shift towards a more business-friendly regulatory approach to overseeing US derivatives markets and CFTC-regulated products. Informed by his years of private sector and public service experiences,1 Mr. Quintenz will return to the CFTC with helpful insights into how regulations practically impact market participants.
As a CFTC commissioner from 2017 to 2021 under the first Trump administration, Mr. Quintenz consistently focused on addressing actual market risks while promoting innovation and technology. Mr. Quintenz’s record suggests that he will be a chairman who embraces technological innovation while insisting on practical safeguards, seeks targeted rather than sweeping regulatory solutions, and works closely with other regulators both domestically and abroad. In each area, he has emphasized that the CFTC should seek to address real market impacts and consider the practical implications of the agency’s rulemakings and guidance. Drawing from his past public statements both while he was a CFTC commissioner and in the years following his government tenure, this advisory briefly examines how Mr. Quintenz’s regulatory worldview will likely influence several key CFTC initiatives, from market innovation to international harmonization efforts.
Following President Trump’s February 12 nomination, Mr. Quintenz will need to secure Senate confirmation before assuming the chairmanship. While the Senate has not yet scheduled confirmation hearings, the process typically extends several weeks or months after nomination as the Senate conducts its review.
Innovation and Technology
Mr. Quintenz’s approach to innovation and technology reflects a pro-business, pro-innovation stance moderated by practical risk management considerations. Rather than supporting blanket or vague regulations that inadvertently engulf a wide array of technologies, Mr. Quintenz has advocated for a more tailored approach that first identifies specific risks, then examines existing market-based solutions, and finally determines whether additional regulation can effectively address remaining concerns.2 Mr. Quintenz has argued “the Commission should not adopt . . . regulations to address amorphous, hypothetical concerns or simply for the sake of having them on the book.”3
Mr. Quintenz’s philosophy aligns with the CFTC’s mandate as set forth in the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) for the agency to promote responsible innovation.4 Mr. Quintenz has consistently followed this mandate in his various leadership roles at the agency. For instance, as sponsor of the CFTC’s Technology Advisory Committee, he demonstrated this balanced approach by driving the broader integration of financial technology in derivatives markets while seeking appropriate safeguards through state-of-the-art risk control mechanisms and scalable cybersecurity programs.5
In the context of his record on supporting or challenging Commission rulemaking, his stance on the ultimately withdrawn Regulation Automated Trading (Reg AT) further illustrates his philosophy regarding innovation and risk management. Mr. Quintenz opposed the various iterations of Reg AT because in his view each proposal departed from promoting responsible innovation, arguing that the proposals would have imposed rigid, one-size-fits-all risk controls while failing to address specific market risks posed by automated trading.6 He particularly criticized one of Reg AT’s requirements to disclose proprietary source code without a subpoena, viewing this as an example of unnecessary regulatory overreach that would stifle innovation without providing corresponding regulatory benefits.7
Digital Assets. Drawing on his experience as both a CFTC commissioner and private fund advisor, Mr. Quintenz has demonstrated that he is a strong advocate for functional and well-regulated digital asset markets. He also has pushed for the agency to take a balanced and pragmatic perspective towards fraud concerns. In his public statements, Mr. Quintenz highlighted how digital assets can reduce settlement times from days to minutes and enable 24/7 market access — innovations he has argued could reduce costs for market participants while expanding global market accessibility.8
Notably, Mr. Quintenz has advocated for equal regulatory treatment for all financial products at the CFTC, arguing that regulators should focus on enforcing market integrity and preventing fraud rather than deciding which new products are worthy of investment through the adoption of additional regulatory requirements. He has maintained that federal regulators should avoid adopting regulations and imposing requirements with the goal of influencing investment decisions. In his view, investment decisions are best left to markets, investors, and consumers.9 At the same time, Mr. Quintenz has taken a firm stance on fraud and market manipulation, supporting enforcement actions to significantly penalize market misconduct by bad actors.10
Event Contracts. With respect to other innovative products, Mr. Quintenz has raised concerns about the current regulatory framework of CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C) and CFTC Regulation 40.11 covering event contracts,11 which are a type of swap that allow market participants to take positions on the outcomes of specific events. Under this regulation, the CFTC may prohibit a CFTC-regulated contract market or swap execution facility from offering certain event contracts if the contract:(1) involves terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or an activity that is unlawful under any state or federal law; and (2) the CFTC determines that offering the contract would be against the public interest.12 The CFTC may also prohibit contracts involving similar activities that it determines by rule or regulation to be contrary to the public interest.13
In his March 2021 statement on the CFTC’s consideration of certain sports futures contracts, Mr. Quintenz argued that Congress, not the CFTC, must either ban these contracts outright or establish clear criteria for their review and approval.14 His dissent specifically challenged the CFTC’s decision-making process in the case, questioning both the Commission’s methodologies and statutory authority in evaluating whether the contracts are contrary to the public interest.15
Risk Management
Mr. Quintenz’s views on risk management have centered on targeted approaches rather than broad-sweeping regulations. He has advocated for “smart regulation” that diverges from one-size-fits-all proposals, instead prioritizing thoughtful analysis of policy goals, regulatory costs and impacts on incentives.16 Mr. Quintenz has applied this same principle to regulatory relief, supporting the codification of no-action relief in specific cases to enhance transparency and simplify compliance.17 This strategy reflects his broader commitment to creating clear, practical regulatory frameworks that address real rather than theoretical risks.
Enforcement
Mr. Quintenz has emphasized that “enforcement is not a substitute for guidance” in financial regulation.18 While supporting targeted action against clear violations, he has argued that using enforcement cases to establish regulatory policy — particularly for emerging technologies like digital assets — fails to provide market participants with the clarity they need.19 As he stated in June 2023, “Litigating whether specific tokens are securities through enforcement actions against third parties . . . is inappropriate and does little to protect consumers or provide markets with clarity.”20 To the contrary, Mr. Quintenz has advocated for a collaborative approach where regulators work with market participants to develop clear rules before pursuing enforcement actions.21
Collaboration on Domestic and International Issues
A central tenet of Mr. Quintenz’s regulatory approach has been his emphasis on enhanced coordination among domestic and international regulators. His previous work with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce reinforces his commitment to interagency coordination.22 It is likely that Mr. Quintenz will seek to collaborate with incoming SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and other SEC commissioners (including Commissioner Peirce) on areas of overlapping jurisdiction between the agencies, including digital asset classification and the regulation of joint registrants.
On the international front, Mr. Quintenz has advocated for regulatory deference and respect for sovereign regulatory frameworks.23 He has supported a robust deference regime that would limit duplicative regulation while protecting US interests, as evidenced by his support for exemptive relief for non-US derivatives clearing organizations.24 During his time as a CFTC commissioner, he consistently reiterated Congress’s statutory directive that the CFTC has authority to only regulate those foreign activities that have “a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on commerce, of the United States.”25
Mr. Quintenz also has advocated for increased reliance on substituted compliance and mutual recognition between jurisdictions as key tools to prevent market fragmentation.26 As a CFTC commissioner, Mr. Quintenz argued that mutual recognition between jurisdictions would preserve market liquidity while respecting different regulatory frameworks. Moreover, he supported a flexible, outcomes-based framework for future comparability determinations that will evaluate the goals of the CFTC’s regulations against the standards of its foreign counterparts’ regimes, as opposed to a rigid prescriptive comparison.27
Conclusion
With the proliferation of new and emerging technologies in US financial markets (such as digital assets, event contracts and generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI)), Mr. Quintenz’s vision for the CFTC will likely result in more pragmatic regulatory policy and enforcement. His support for innovation, emphasis on targeted risk management, and commitment to regulatory coordination will likely shape his approach as CFTC chairman. Under his leadership, the CFTC is likely to pursue a regulatory agenda that balances innovation with investor protection, emphasizing practical, actionable solutions. This approach, combined with his commitment to working with market participants and other regulators, will help guide the Commission through an increasingly complex and interconnected global financial system. For financial services firms, Mr. Quintenz’s chairmanship may signal a period of more pragmatic and targeted regulation, with an emphasis on addressing specific and identifiable risks.
1 Mengqi Sun, Trump Picks Brian Quintenz to Be CFTC Chairman, Wall St. J. (Feb. 13, 2025, 1:47 PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-picks-brian-quintenz-to-be-cftc-chairman-3e23352d.
2 Brian D. Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Statement of Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz on the End of His Term and Future Plans” (Aug. 19, 2021), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/quintenzstatement081921.
3 Brian D. Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Opening Statement of Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz before the Technology Advisory Committee” (Feb. 14, 2018), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/quintenzstatement021418.
4 7 U.S.C. § 5(b).
5 See Press Release, CFTC, “Commissioner Quintenz Named Sponsor of the Technology Advisory Committee” (Sept. 18, 2017), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7611-17.
6 Supra note 3.
7 Brian Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Keynote Remarks Before the Symphony Innovate 2017 Conference” (Oct. 4, 2017), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaquintenz1.
8 Supra note 6.
9 Brian D. Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Remarks at the Technology and Standards: Unlocking Value in Derivatives Markets Conference” (Nov. 30, 2017), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaquintenz4.
10 Brian D. Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Statement of Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz Regarding the Commission’s Enforcement Action against BitMEX” (Oct. 1, 2020), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/quintenzstatement100120.
11 Brian D. Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Statement of Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz on ErisX RSBIX NFL Contracts and Certain Event Contracts” (Mar. 25, 2021), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/quintenzstatement032521.
12 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C).
13 Id.
14 Brian D. Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Statement of Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz on ErisX RSBIX NFL Contracts and Certain Event Contracts” (Mar. 25, 2021), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/quintenzstatement032521.
15 Id.
16 Brian D. Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Keynote Address of Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz before the Smart Financial Regulation Roundtable” (Nov. 2, 2017), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaquintenz3.
17 Id.
18 Brian D. Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Statement of Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz Regarding the Commission’s Enforcement Action against BitMEX” (Oct. 1, 2020), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/quintenzstatement100120.
19 Id.
20 Former CFTC Commissioner: Enforcement Is Not a Substitute for Guidance, N.M. Sun (June 8, 2023), https://newmexicosun.com/stories/644420239-former-cftc-commissioner-enforcement-is-not-a-substitute-for-guidance.
21 Id.
22 Supra note 2.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Brian D. Quintenz, Comm’r, CFTC, “Supporting Statement of Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz Regarding the Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to SDs and MSPs – Final Rule” (July 23, 2020), available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/quintenzstatement072320.
26 Id.
27 Id.
Updated: The Future of Gender-Affirming Care – New Legal and Regulatory Considerations for Hospitals Providing These Services
As legal and policy developments continue to evolve, hospitals and health care professionals that provide gender-affirming care face new uncertainties regarding federal funding, compliance, and patient access. While these changes may not impact health care organizations that do not offer gender-affirming services, those that do must stay informed to navigate the rapidly changing legal landscape.
Gender-affirming care, which includes medical and psychological interventions for transgender and nonbinary individuals, is a service endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society. New federal guidance and pending legal disputes raise questions about how hospitals and health care professionals that offer these services may continue to do so while maintaining compliance with evolving regulations.
A key concern for these institutions is the potential impact on federal funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, particularly for minors. Recent executive actions and policy statements have signaled that certain federal funding streams—such as Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, medical education grants, and research funding—could be subject to additional scrutiny. While the full extent of enforcement remains unclear, agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are expected to issue further guidance that could affect reimbursement policies and institutional funding structures.
Late last week two federal courts granted temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) enjoining parts of President Trump’s Executive Order 14187, related to gender affirming care, and Executive Order 14168, related to recognition of gender identity.
On February 13, a federal court in Maryland granted a nationwide TRO prohibiting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Health Resources and Services Administration, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and any subagencies of HHS from conditioning or withholding federal funding based on the fact that a healthcare entity or health professional provides gender affirming medical care to a patient under the age of nineteen. The TRO will be in effect for 14 days. The order also requires the federal agencies to file a status report by February 20 to inform the court about their compliance with the order. The TRO only enjoins the provisions of Executive Orders 14187 and 14168 related to federal funding and grant conditions. The other provisions of EO 14187, including those directing the Secretary of HHS to take appropriate regulatory and sub-regulatory actions in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and in health insurance coverage offered through Exchanges to end gender affirming care for children, remain in effect.
On February 14, a federal court in Washington granted a second TRO related to EO 14187, temporarily blocking enforcement and implementation of both the EO provision related to conditions on federal funding and the provision redefining the term “female genital mutilation” under a U.S. criminal statute. The TRO will also be in effect for 14 days and applies only within the states of Washington, Oregon and Minnesota.
The temporary restraining orders have paused some of the executive order’s effects, but they are only short-term measures. If they expire without further legal intervention, hospitals and health care professionals that provide gender-affirming care could once again face challenges related to federal funding, compliance risks, and regulatory enforcement. While the funding restrictions are currently blocked, the executive order also directs federal agencies to take broader action against gender-affirming care in federal programs, which could lead to further administrative and regulatory hurdles.
For hospitals and health care professionals that provide gender-affirming care and rely on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, federal research grants, or medical education funding, this uncertainty makes it difficult to plan ahead. There is also the question of how federal agencies will interpret and apply these policies once the TROs expire, particularly in states with existing protections for gender-affirming care.
Hospitals and health care professionals that provide gender-affirming care need to assess their financial risk, legal position, and potential compliance strategies now rather than waiting for additional court rulings. Being proactive in understanding the risks and preparing for different scenarios will help institutions navigate what remains a highly fluid and unpredictable regulatory environment.
Given the shifting regulatory environment, hospitals and health care professionals that continue to offer gender-affirming care should take proactive steps to mitigate risks and ensure compliance. Conducting a thorough review of federal funding sources will be essential in assessing exposure to potential funding restrictions. Performing an inventory of the types of gender-affirming care being provided as well as gender-affirming mental health support and research is also advisable. Engaging with legal and policy experts to develop compliance strategies will help institutions navigate changing regulations while maintaining patient care commitments.
Additionally, in states where gender-affirming services remain protected, hospitals and health care professionals may still face federal scrutiny but could have stronger legal grounds to continue offering care. In states with restrictive policies, exploring out-of-state partnerships or telehealth models may provide alternative pathways for patient access.
As this issue continues to develop, healthcare institutions and professionals that provide gender affirming care must remain agile and prepared for further policy changes. The next several months are likely to bring additional legal challenges, agency directives, and potential legislative responses that could further shape the landscape. Hospitals and health care professionals providing gender-affirming care should actively assess their institutional risk, consult legal and policy experts, and remain engaged in broader policy discussions to ensure they can continue to deliver these services while staying compliant with applicable laws.
Healthcare Preview for the Week of: February 18, 2025 [Podcast]
President’s Day Shortened Week
After the President’s Day long weekend, the House is out of session this week. The Senate is in session, with a continued focus on nominations and potential floor action on the budget resolution that the Senate Budget Committee reported last week. This week the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing for Dan Bishop, nominated to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Healthcare could certainly be a topic that is raised at the hearing.
What remains to be seen this week is whether there will be additional steps toward budget reconciliation. Last week, the Senate and House budget committees passed very different budget resolutions. The Senate version is the first of two reconciliation efforts and is focused only on energy, immigration, and defense policies, while the House wants to pass one big package with all priorities, including extending the Trump tax cuts. Either version will likely include healthcare policies in order to offset spending priorities, although the magnitude of healthcare cuts, in particular for Medicaid, is far greater in the House, whose budget resolution targets a minimum of $880 billion in savings from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. With the House out this week, the Senate could advance its budget resolution to floor consideration and send it on to the House. Of course, the House is not required to then act on that bill. It is very possible that the House could move forward with its own approach. But, before either body can turn to the substantive work of developing a reconciliation package, a unified budget resolution must pass both bodies.
Last Thursday, Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr. was confirmed and sworn in as secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). His Senate confirmation vote was 52 – 48, with Sen. McConnell (R-KY) the sole Republican to vote no. As predicted, immediately after RFK Jr.’s swearing in, President Trump took several healthcare actions. He signed an executive order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission, whose initial mission is to advise the president on how to address childhood chronic diseases. The order directs the commission to study contributing causes, advise the president on public education, and provide government-wide recommendations to address contributing causes. Additional executive orders on healthcare could be forthcoming.
As forecast, the Trump administration laid off thousands of HHS employees on Friday and over the weekend, including at the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health. The Trump administration contends that the layoffs did not include essential workers. Individuals laid off primarily include those in a probationary period, but the impact of these changes is still being understood and is likely to impact the operation of Medicare, Medicaid, federal grant programs, and other HHS functions.
Today’s Podcast
In this week’s Healthcare Preview podcast, Debbie Curtis and Rodney Whitlock join Julia Grabo to recap the mass HHS layoffs over the long weekend and discuss next steps in the budget reconciliation process.
United States: SEC Issues New Guidance on Schedule 13G Eligibility
The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance recently issued new guidance regarding when shareholders can file beneficial ownership reports on Schedule 13G. While the 11 February 2025 Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation (C&DI) maintains the same fundamental principles as before, it adopts a more nuanced approach to what constitutes “changing or influencing control of the issuer.”
What Hasn’t Changed
The basic framework remains intact: shareholders can still file on Schedule 13G if their securities weren’t acquired or held with the purpose of changing or influencing issuer control. The guidance continues to prohibit using Schedule 13G when advocating for clear “control” transactions, such as:
Sale of the issuer
Sale of significant assets
Restructuring
Contested director elections
What Has Changed
The new guidance takes a more detailed look at how shareholders engage with management. While simply discussing views or voting decisions remains acceptable, the C&DI now explicitly addresses pressure tactics. Specifically, shareholders might lose Schedule 13G eligibility if they:
Exert pressure on management to implement specific measures
Condition their support for director nominees on the adoption of particular policies
Link their voting decisions to management’s acceptance of their recommendations
Practical Impact
This interpretation represents more of a tone shift than a substantive change in policy. However, it may cause institutional investors to think twice about their engagement strategies. Those who currently file on Schedule 13G might become more cautious about how they communicate their voting policies, particularly if those policies include withholding support from directors at companies with inconsistent practices.
The guidance suggests that while engagement remains acceptable, the manner and context of that engagement matter more than previously emphasized. Shareholders will need to carefully consider how they frame their discussions with management to maintain their Schedule 13G eligibility.
ILPA Publishes Updated Reporting Template and New Performance Template
The Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA) recently released its updated ILPA reporting template (Reporting Template) and a new ILPA performance template (Performance Template), together with corresponding guidance.
The enhancements aim to promote greater standardisation, transparency and comparability in private fund reporting, reflecting the industry’s evolving dynamics. As such, the Reporting Template and the Performance Template aim to strengthen the alignment of interests and partnerships between general partners and limited partners to foster a more efficient and trustworthy investment environment.
Background
The original ILPA reporting template was introduced in 2016 to standardise disclosures related to fees, expenses and carried interest within the private fund sector. Since then, the industry has experienced transformative changes, including, among other things, shifts in fund economics, increased expectations for transparency and the emergence of advanced technological solutions to support reporting processes.
ILPA initiated the formation of the Quarterly Reporting Standards Initiative (QRSI) in 2024, in response to the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed release of the Private Fund Adviser’s Rule (PFA) to ensure that the ILPA reporting framework conformed to the PFA. When the PFA was vacated by US courts, the QRSI became an “industry-driven” solution engaging a diverse group of stakeholders, including limited partners, general partners, service providers and consultants, to collaborate on updating the Reporting Template.
Key Updates to ILPA’s Reporting Template
The Reporting Template introduces several notable changes, including:
Additional Cash Flow Detail. The Reporting Template added more detail to the cash / non-cash flows section to include offering and syndication costs, placement fees and partner transfers.
Detailed internal chargebacks. The Reporting Template now requires the breakdown of internal chargebacks, enabling the identification of expenses allocated or paid to general partners or related entities.
Granular external partnership expenses. The Reporting Template provides a more detailed categorisation of external partnership expenses, aligning more closely with general ledger accounts to enhance clarity and consistency.
Uniform reporting level. The Reporting Template establishes a single uniform level of detail for all general partners, with the aim of promoting consistency with the reporting frameworks outlined in governing documents and accounting standards.
The Reporting Template replaces the 2016 version going forward for funds still in their investment period during the first quarter of 2026 and for funds commencing operations on or after 1 January 2026.
Introduction of ILPA’s Performance Template
Alongside the Reporting Template, the ILPA published the Performance Template designed to standardise return calculation methodologies in the private fund sector.
The key features of the Performance Template include, among other things:
Cash flow and portfolio-level transaction mapping. The Performance Template sets out tables to capture cash flows as well as fund- and portfolio-level transaction type mapping, intended to provide transparency into the calculation methodology for performance metrics.
Standardised performance metrics reporting. The Performance Template includes reporting for performance metrics including the internal rate of return, total value to paid-in and multiple on invested capital, with designated breakouts for the relevant gross and net figures.
Two methodology forms. The Performance Template is available in two versions to support general partners’ varying approaches to fund-level performance calculation methodology — one version is based on itemised cash flows (i.e., the granular method) and the other on grossed-up cash flows (i.e., the gross-up method).
The ILPA recommends that the Performance Template should be used for funds commencing operations on or after 1 January 2026.
The Reporting Template and Performance Template are available here and here, respectively.
FTC Announces 2025 Hart-Scott-Rodino Threshold Revisions
Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the Act), parties to certain mergers or acquisitions must notify the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and observe a waiting period before closing. This notification program allows the FTC and DOJ to evaluate potential anticompetitive effects of a proposed transaction. Whether a proposed transaction is subject to the notification program generally depends on the size of the transaction and the size of the parties.
The Act requires parties to file the notification and observe the waiting period if either of the following would be true as a result of the proposed transaction:
The acquiring person will hold an aggregate amount of voting securities, non-corporate interests, or assets of the acquired person valued in excess of $200 million (as adjusted).
The acquiring person will hold an aggregate amount of voting securities, non-corporate interests, or assets of the acquired person valued in excess of $50 million (as adjusted) but not more than $200 million (as adjusted), and one person has sales or assets of at least $100 million (as adjusted), and the other person has sales or assets of at least $10 million (as adjusted).
The dollar thresholds above are noted to be “as adjusted” because they are required to be revised annually by the FTC based on changes in the gross national product. A complete list of the original thresholds, two most recent prior thresholds, and current threshold revisions are shown in this chart:
Original Threshold
Prior Threshold(Went Into Effect February 27, 2023)
Prior Threshold(Went Into Effect March 6, 2024)
Current Threshold(Will Go Into Effect February 21, 2025)
$10 million
$22.3 million
$23.9 million
$25.3 million
$50 million
$111.4 million
$119.5 million
$126.4 million
$100 million
$222.7 million
$239.0 million
$252.9 million
$110 million
$245.0 million
$262.9 million
$278.2 million
$200 million
$445.5 million
$478.0 million
$505.8 million
$500 million
$1.1137 billion
$1.195 billion
$1.264 billion
$1 billion
$2.2274 billion
$2.39 billion
$2.529 billion
Size of Transaction Alone: The original size-of-transaction threshold under the Act was $200 million. As the chart above shows, the current size of transaction threshold for this purpose is $505.8 million. Using the applicable current threshold, transactions are reportable under the Act if the acquiring person will hold an aggregate amount of voting securities, non-corporate interests, or assets of the acquired person valued in excess of $505.8 million.
Size of Transaction and Size of Person: The original size-of-transaction thresholds under the Act were $50 million and $200 million, while the size-of-person thresholds were $100 million and $10 million. Using the applicable current thresholds, transactions are reportable under the Act if a) the acquiring person will hold an aggregate amount of voting securities, non-corporate interests, or assets of the acquired person valued in excess of $126.4 million but not more than $505.8 million, b) one person has sales or assets of at least $252.9 million, and c) the other person has sales or assets of at least $25.3 million.
Each notification under the Act requires a filing fee, which is dependent on the size of the transaction. The updated filing fees will be effective on February 21, 2025, and are as follows:
Size of Transaction
Filing Fee
in excess of $126.4 million but less than $179.4 million
$30,000
not less than $179.4 million but less than $555.5 million
$105,000
not less than $555.5 million but less than $1.111 billion
$265,000
not less than $1.111 billion but less than $2.222 billion
$425,000
not less than $2.222 billion but less than $5.555 billion
$850,000
$5.555 billion or more
$2.39 million
Civil penalties may be imposed for violations of the Act. Effective January 10, 2024, the maximum civil penalty amount increased from $51,744 to $53,088 per day.
Earlier this year, the FTC, in concurrence with the DOJ, issued rules updating the premerger notification form (HSR Form). The revised rules were published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2024, and took effect on February 10, 2025. As of that date, all notifications must use the updated HSR Form. The FTC also announced that it will lift the suspension on early termination of the 30-day waiting period, which has been in place since February 2021.
Texas Federal Court Pauses CFPB Rule Banning Medical Debt from Credit Reports
On February 6, a judge for the United District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a 90-day stay on the CFPB’s final rule prohibiting the inclusion of medical debt in consumer credit reports, delaying the rule’s effective date from March 17 to June 15.
The CFPB’s rule (which we previously discussed here and here) seeks to prohibit consumer reporting agencies from including these unpaid medical bills in credit reports and prohibit lenders from considering medical debt when making credit decisions. The pause follows a legal challenge (previously discussed here) from industry trade associations, contending that the rule exceeds the CFPB’s authority under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Putting It Into Practice: The 90-day delay temporarily halts implementation of the CFPB’s rule, however its future remains uncertain under new CFPB leadership. The rule would have been effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, the Bureau’s first Acting Director, Scott Bessent “suspend[ed] the effective dates of all final rules that have been issued or published but that have not yet become effective. Any formal changes to the rules would require adherence to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) through formal notice-and-comment rulemaking. The rule is also subject to a challenge under the Congressional Review Act. Consumer reporting agencies should continue to monitor these developments closely, as the litigation could lead to further delays or a potential invalidation of the rule.
Listen to this post
California Governor Appoints New DFPI Commissioner
On February 7, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced the appointment of Khalil “KC” Mohseni as the new Commissioner of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI). Mohseni has been serving as the Chief Deputy Director of the DFPI since 2023 and has previously held positions such as Chief Operations Officer at the State Controller’s Office and Deputy Director of Administration at the California Department of Housing and Community Development. His appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.
Putting It Into Practice: Mohseni’s experience in state financial operations and regulatory oversight suggests a continued emphasis on consumer protection for the DFPI. Given the uncertain future of the CFPB under the Trump administration, state regulators like the DFPI are expected to take a more active role in consumer financial oversight (previously discussed here). Financial institutions should monitor state-level regulatory developments and prepare for a potential uptick in state-level enforcement actions and rulemaking.
Listen to this post
Trump Administration Announces New Picks for the CFPB and OCC
On February 12, the Trump administration announced Jonathan McKernan as the Director of the CFPB and Jonathan Gould as the Comptroller of the Currency. McKernan and Gould will replace Acting Directors Russell Vought and Rodney Hood, who were appointed to head the CFPB and the OCC, respectively, on an interim basis.
McKernan, a lawyer, spent several years in private practice before joining the staff of Senator Bob Corker, and then held other policy advisor roles at the Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency before becoming Counsel to Senator Pat Toomey on the Senate Banking Committee.
President Biden nominated McKernan to serve as a Republican member on the FDIC’s Board in 2022. McKernan has made a number of speeches as FDIC Director which may signal his potential approach as CFPB Director. Among his positions, he stated that regulators “should avoid the temptation to pile on yet more prescriptive regulation or otherwise push responsible risk taking out of the banking system.” He has also opposed the FDIC’s final rule implementing the Community Reinvestment Act, criticizing the length and complexity of the rule, as well as whether regulators had the authority to prescribe certain aspects of the rule.
Gould was previously chief legal officer at the crypto firm Bitfury and, before that, was senior deputy comptroller and chief counsel at the OCC. His appointment is in line with the Trump administration’s crypto friendly approach.
Putting It Into Practice: Changes at the Bureau are happening by the hour. Acting Director Vought expanded an existing stop-work order at the CFPB, suspending all supervision and examination activities in addition to rulemaking and enforcement. The agency’s next scheduled funding request was canceled, with Vought citing that its current funding amount was sufficient. CFPB headquarters have also been closed and Vought terminated dozens of employees who were still in their probationary period. The continued broadsides against the CFPB means that McKernan will inherit a severely weakened Bureau. With rulemaking, enforcement, and supervision at the Bureau halted, providers of consumer financial products and services should closely monitor the activity of state-level regulators, who may become more active in response to a weakened CFPB (previously discussed here).
Listen to this post
Beltway Buzz, February 14, 2025
The Beltway Buzz™ is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.
Congress: Big Picture Legislative Update. The 119th Congress is revving up, and the Buzz is monitoring two major legislative issues:
Government funding expires on March 14, 2025—one month from today. Clearly, there is plenty of political acrimony between the parties, along with consternation among Democrats concerning how the administration has operated during its first several weeks. There are no clear signs yet about whether we are heading for a government shutdown, and anything can happen, as we saw during the final week of 2024.
This week, the U.S. Congress officially started the budget reconciliation process that it will use to pass Republican legislative priorities, such as tax cuts, border security, defense spending, and energy promotion. As the Buzz has previously discussed, this complicated process will allow the Republicans to avoid the legislative filibuster in the U.S. Senate and pass legislation on a party-line basis. The process is likely to take up much of Congress’s time in the coming weeks and months.
AG Issues Memos on Private-Sector DEI. On February 5, 2025, Pam Bondi, the newly confirmed attorney general, issued two memoranda to U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) employees instructing them on steps that they must take to implement Executive Order (EO) 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The memos are as follows:
“Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences.” This memo instructs the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and Office of Legal Policy to jointly draft and submit a report containing recommendations “to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including policies relating to [diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and [diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility (DEIA)].”
This report must contain “specific steps or measures to deter the use of DEI and DEIA programs or principles that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences, including proposals for criminal investigations and for up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of [private-sector] entities.” (Emphasis added.) This likely refers to provisions of EO 14173 that invoke the False Claims Act, which allows for criminal penalties, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and private citizen “whistleblower” actions. Lauren B. Hicks, T. Scott Kelly, and Zachary V. Zagger provide an analysis of the implications of EO 14173 for organizations doing business with the federal government that will be subject to potential liability under the False Claims Act.
“Eliminating Internal Discriminatory Practices.” This memo primarily instructs DOJ officials to terminate internal discriminatory programs and policies relating to DEI and DEIA. This includes the elimination of positions, programs, grants, contracts with vendors, etc., relating to DEI. It also directs DOJ officials to make recommendations on how to align the agency’s enforcement activities, litigation positions, consent decrees, regulations, and policies with the EO.
The memo further instructs DOJ officials to develop new guidance that “narrow[s] the use of ‘disparate impact’ theories” and emphasizes that “statistical disparities alone do not automatically constitute unlawful discrimination.”
DOL Nominees Announced. The Senate has already confirmed sixteen of President Trump’s agency nominees, but the employment-related agencies (i.e., the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)) are a bit behind. There was some news this week, however, relating to DOL nominees:
Secretary of Labor Hearing. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions was scheduled to hold a hearing this week on the nomination of former U.S. Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon to be secretary of labor. But due to a snowstorm in the Washington, D.C., area, the hearing has been rescheduled for February 19, 2025.
DOL Subagency Nominees. Potentially filling in the leadership positions of the DOL’s subagencies, are the following nominees who were announced this week:
David Keeling has been nominated to be the assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. Keeling has held several positions overseeing private-sector employers’ workplace safety programs.
Wayne Palmer has been nominated to be the assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health. Palmer held the same position during the first Trump administration.
Daniel Aronowitz, an insurance industry executive, has been nominated to lead the Employee Benefits Security Administration.
Henry Mack III has been nominated to lead the Employment and Training Administration. Mack previously served in the Florida Department of Education.
CFPB Halts Activity. Activity at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was effectively stopped this week while the Department of Government Efficiency reviews the agency’s internal operations. The CFPB, which “enforces Federal consumer financial law and ensures that markets for consumer financial products are transparent, fair, and competitive” stretched its reach over the last several years as part of former President Joe Biden’s “whole of government” approach to promoting unionization. For example, in 2023, the CFPB entered into an information sharing agreement with the NLRB “to address practices that harm workers in the ‘gig economy’ and other labor markets.” Pursuant to that agreement, the CFPB also focused on “employer-driven debt” that allegedly results from employee expenses related to “employer-mandated training or equipment.” Created by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, CFPB has long been criticized by Republicans.
H-1B Registration Period Announced. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced that the fiscal year 2026 H-1B cap registration period will open at noon ET on Friday, March 7, 2025, and close at noon ET on Monday, March 24, 2025. Nicole Fink and Philip K. Sholts have the details on the increased fees, the second go-round of the beneficiary-centric selection process, and other need-to-know aspects of the process.
Remembering Justice Scalia. Supreme Court of the United States Justice Antonin Scalia passed away this week in 2016 at the age of seventy-nine. While an incredible amount has been written about Justice Scalia and his legal philosophy, at the Buzz, we remember his jurisprudence related to labor and employment law. For example, Justice Scalia took part in decisions holding that union “salts” were employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that the NLRB was precluded by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 from awarding backpay to undocumented workers—even if their employment termination was otherwise unlawful under the NLRA. With the opportunity to write for the Court, Justice Scalia authored opinions emphasizing the need for sufficient commonality between potential members of a class action, particularly in employment law cases, as well as an opinion holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws prohibiting class action waivers in arbitration. Finally, in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., Justice Scalia wrote that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition of discrimination “because of … sex” applied to same-sex sexual harassment claims.
Blockchain+ Bi-Weekly; Highlights of the Last Few Weeks in Web3 Law: February 14, 2025
The first weeks of February have been eventful for digital asset regulation, with major policy shifts, legal battles and legislative initiatives shaping the future of Web3. The SEC’s formation of a dedicated crypto rulemaking task force, Coinbase’s latest legal maneuvering, the CFTC’s scrutiny of sports-related prediction markets, and Senate hearings on stablecoins signal an evolving regulatory landscape. Key developments include renewed scrutiny over bank relationships with crypto firms and the SEC’s shifting stance on spot crypto ETFs. As the U.S. government reassesses its approach to digital asset oversight, key figures in Congress, and the SEC have signaled a strong desire for reforms and meaningful legislation. However, significant hurdles remain—not least of which is the relatively short window Congress has to pass legislation before the election cycle takes over.
These developments and a few other brief notes are discussed below.
SEC Forms Crypto Rulemaking Task Force: January 21, 2025
Background: On his first day as acting SEC Chair, Mark Uyeda announced that the SEC has “launched a crypto task force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for crypto assets.” Commissioner Peirce has been tapped to lead the task force, which according to SEC press release, “will collaborate with Commission staff and the public to set the SEC on a sensible regulatory path that respects the bounds of the law.” Further, its focus will be “to help the Commission draw clear regulatory lines, provide realistic paths to registration, craft sensible disclosure frameworks and deploy enforcement resources judiciously.” The task force has since solicited comments by e-mailing [email protected] and setting up a meeting request form here.
Analysis: Commissioner Peirce’s Token Safe Harbor Proposal 2.0 from 2021 remains one of the most well-structured and thoughtful regulatory approaches to digital assets from any regulator, making her an ideal choice to lead this task force. While it is unclear how this initiative will interplay with the Third Circuit’s recent rulemaking ruling, it seems increasingly likely that some form of crypto regulation will emerge from the SEC in the coming months or years. The challenge ahead is significant—defining ‘decentralization,’ ensuring oversight to prevent fraud and abuse and fostering innovation without stifling legitimate actors is a delicate balance. If anyone is equipped to navigate this, it’s Commissioner Peirce.
Coinbase Files Petition for Permission to Appeal at Second Circuit: January 21, 2025
Background: The lower court in the SEC v. Coinbase matter previously stayed the matter and granted permission for Coinbase to ask the Second Circuit to hear its interlocutory appeal of matters decided on its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Second Circuit still has to agree to hear the matter, and in its opening brief, Coinbase implores the appellate court to weigh in on whether digital asset transactions in secondary markets are investment contract transactions.
Analysis: Amicus filed by the Blockchain Association and the Chamber of Commerce also encouraged the appellate court to take up this issue. Newly appointed Chair of the Senate Finance Services Digital Asset Subcommittee, Senator Lummis, also weighed in, asking for the Second Circuit to take up the issue. Administrations come and go, but case law is enduring, so this is still a very important case and will set legal precedent for years to come. The “ecosystem theory” provided by the SEC and endorsed by the lower court makes no sense. Bitcoin, Ether and other assets that the SEC had admitted are not securities have gigantic “ecosystems,” and it also makes no sense as to how an “ecosystem” can register with the SEC. Strong appellate case law on these issues would alleviate the need to rush into expansive legislation that could have unknown externalities (including benefitting incumbents to the detriment of new entries), even if they do provide a level of clarity.
Joint Press Conference Held on Bipartisan Roadmap to Digital Asset Legislation: February 4, 2025
Background: “Crypto and AI Czar” David Sacks held a press conference with Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott, House Financial Services Chair French Hill, House Agriculture Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson and Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman to discuss the previously issued Executive Order titled Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology and how the Executive and Legislative branches planned to work together in establishing a clear framework for U.S. digital assets and their issuers.
Analysis: The main takeaway seemed to be that stablecoin legislation is on the immediate horizon, which is discussed below as well as related to Senator Hagerty’s GENIUS Act being released the same day as the press conference. It also appears that FIT 21 (passed through the House last year) will be the starting point for a market structure bill, but as I have previously covered, there are still significant hurdles to overcome to make that market structure bill fit for purpose. There was recognition by all the speakers that digital assets are going to be foundational in financial services for the foreseeable future, so creating a framework to ensure U.S. dominance in the sector will be crucial in maintaining the current dominance of American financial markets.
CFTC and SEC Announce Digital Asset Agendas: February 4, 2025
Background: In a statement titled “The Journey Begins,” Commissioner Peirce put forward her plans as the leader of the newly formed SEC Crypto Task Force. While at the CFTC, Acting Chair Pham announced a plan to “Refocus on Fraud and Helping Victims, Stop Regulation by Enforcement” and various task force realignments at the agency. Both seem intent to remain focused on bringing actions against fraudsters or bad actors while removing enforcement focus from good actors who are attempting to abide within the bounds of commodities and securities laws when applied to blockchain-enabled cryptographic technologies.
Analysis: Commissioner Peirce’s statement is especially well done. “In this country, people generally have a right to make decisions for themselves, but the counterpart to that wonderful American liberty is the equally wonderful American expectation that people must decide for themselves, not look to Mama Government to tell them what to do or not to do, nor to bail them out when they do something that turns out badly.” The Digital Chamber, Blockchain Association and others have already announced organized working groups to assist the agencies in reaching sound policies that protect against fraud while preserving American freedoms and innovations. There seems to be renewed hope that a sensible and transparent framework for operating a digital asset company in the United States is feasible in the next few years.
Congress Holds Hearings on Debanking (Chokepoint 2.0): February 5-6, 2025
Background: The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing titled Investigating the Real Impacts of Debanking in America on February 5, followed shortly thereafter by a House Financial Services Committee hearing titled Operation Choke Point 2.0: The Biden Administration’s Efforts to Put Crypto in the Crosshairs on February 6. While both had an aim at determining the scope of debanking and potential solutions to legally operating individuals and companies being refused banking services, the House’s hearing focused especially on digital assets and had testimony from Coinbase head of legal Paul Grewal and NYU Professor Austin Campbell, both of whom emphasized the disproportionate impact debanking has had on digital asset participants.
Analysis: Directly before the Senate’s hearing, Senator Cramer (R-ND) reintroduced his Fair Access to Banking Act, which would require banks to provide impartial and risk-based explanations for granting or refusing lending or other banking services. The FDIC also released 175 documents related to its supervision of banks that engaged in, or sought to engage in, crypto-related activities before the hearings (previously withheld despite FOIA requests/litigation over those requests; also, read this bench slap transcript in that FOIA action if you are ever having a bad day and need a pick-me-up). This was a great section of the think pieces referenced below about the effect debanking can have on ordinary people and the need for access to DeFi for people that want more control over their own finances.
CFTC Investigates Sports-Related Prediction Market Contracts (February 9, 2025)
Background: The CFTC has opened an inquiry into the legality of sports-related prediction market contracts, reinforcing its oversight of event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act. In a February 9 statement, the agency confirmed it is reviewing the regulatory status of these products and assessing whether they constitute unlawful gaming or derivatives trading. In response, Robinhood preemptively delisted its prediction contracts, citing regulatory uncertainty. However, Kalshi and Crypto.com kept their markets active through and past the Super Bowl, arguing they fall within existing CFTC exemptions.
Analysis: The CFTC’s scrutiny signals a potential crackdown on sports-related event contracts, an area that has long existed in a regulatory gray zone. Until last year’s case between Kalshi and the CFTC, the agency took the position that betting contracts generally are binary options that are subject to the agency’s regulation and oversight. Further, it remains unclear how these fit within the framework of the two federal statutes that explicitly address sports betting, the Wire Act and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, particularly if the Department of Justice adjusts its interpretation of those laws.
Briefly Noted:
Polsinelli Releases Tech Transaction and Data Privacy Report: The Polsinelli annual Tech Transactions and Data Privacy Report is out, which breaks down the information companies should stay informed on regarding tech and data privacy legal issues for 2025, including a breakdown of Web3 topics to pay attention to.
SEC Pauses Certain Investigations and Cases. On February 11, the SEC and Binance filed a joint motion to stay the agency’s lawsuit against Binance for 60 days. The rationale was that the SEC’s joint task force is working on regulations that may “impact and facilitate the potential resolution of this case. Additionally, it appears that the SEC has sent a number of close-out letters in recent weeks, formally closing investigations into certain other crypto companies.
Senate Stablecoin Bill Introduced: Senate Banking Committee member Bill Hagerty (R-TN) has introduced a bipartisan Senate stablecoin bill (Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) is a co-sponsor) as a companion to the House bill passed through their financial services committee last year. The House also dropped a discussion draft bill. Bills like this for discrete digital asset issues combined with knowledgeable people in administrative leadership roles make total sense.
SEC Scores Win on Major Question Defense Against Kraken: The SEC successfully struck Kraken’s Major Question defense (but since there doesn’t need to be discovery on the issue, left open the ability for Kraken to assert again later) but failed to get due process and fair notice defenses tossed.
Senate Confirms Treasury Secretary: Scott Bessent has been confirmed as the new Treasury secretary, replacing Janet Yellen. He is viewed as “pro-crypto,” so one can hope for some common sense rulemaking around digital asset tax reporting and compliance during his tenure.
SAB 121 Repealed: The Controversial SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121), which essentially foreclosed publicly traded banks from taking custody of digital assets for their customers by requiring digital assets be listed as liabilities on the banks’ balance sheets, has been withdrawn. This comes after both the House and Senate passed a bipartisan resolution to withdraw the rule, which was vetoed by President Biden.
Tornado Cash Sanctions Lifted: It looks like the U.S. government will likely not be appealing the decision that overturned the OFAC sanctions of Tornado Cash, and there is no en banc review, so it is heading back to the District Court for either a nationwide vacatur or a more limited ruling. This does not, however, eliminate sanctions against the legal persons who allegedly performed bad acts using Tornado Cash, and wallets believed to be associated with North Korea remain on OFAC’s blacklist.
KuCoin Enters Plea Deal: Kucoin agreed to pay $300 million in unlicensed money transmission penalties, and its founders entered deferred prosecution agreements related to operating a digital asset exchange without proper money transmission licenses.
Conclusion:
As regulatory and legislative efforts accelerate, 2025 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for the digital asset industry. The formation of the SEC Crypto Task Force, bipartisan movement on stablecoin and market structure legislation, and ongoing legal challenges against regulatory overreach indicate that the framework governing digital assets is evolving in ways that could significantly impact the industry’s trajectory.
Increasing Divergence Between US and EU Banks in Approach to Climate Change
Over the past several weeks, each of the major US banks have announced their withdrawal from the Net Zero Banking Alliance (presumably in response to the policy priorities of the second Trump Administration). Although participation in this group may have been more a matter of “virtue-signaling” rather than expressing and adopting a meaningful commitment, the departure of the US banks was nonetheless noteworthy as demonstrating the changing political climate in the United States. During this same time period, in contrast, many of the European Union’s largest banks have re-affirmed their commitment to the Net Zero Banking Alliance, declaring it a core component of their environmental and sustainability strategies.
This divergence between the US and EU with respect to the Net Zero Banking Alliance is illustrative of the increasing divide between the two major Western economies on an array of issues related to climate change. For example, while the SEC is preparing to dismantle the Biden Administration’s climate disclosure law, the EU is maintaining–although possibly adjusting–its own climate disclosure laws. Navigating this divide is becoming increasingly complex for the many companies that operate in both jurisdictions, or simply have commercial ties and are subject to regulatory burdens on both shores of the North Atlantic.
Several of Europe’s biggest banks have declared their commitment to the world’s largest climate alliance for the industry, distancing themselves from Wall Street’s sudden exit from the group. . . . The declarations of support for NZBA follow a period of crisis for the alliance, which saw its biggest US members walk away in quick succession after the Nov. 5 election. President Donald Trump has since taken a wrecking ball to the climate agenda of his predecessor, including ordering that the US leave the Paris climate agreement. Though Europe is struggling with its own backlash against environmental, social and governance regulations, its biggest banks say they remain committed to working together to fight climate change.
www.bloomberglaw.com/…