Blog
Congratulations to the 2016-2017 RBFL Editors!
Congratulations to new RBFL editors for 2016-2017!
We are confident that you will continue the Review’s tradition of excellence!
Editor-in-Chief
Mary Grace Patterson
Executive Editor for Management
Harrison Freeman
Executive Editor for Professional Articles
Will Simpson
Executive Editor for Notes & Comments
Brittany Cohen
Executive Editor for Symposium
Steven Garza
Executive Editor of Marketing
Koya Choi
Executive Editors for Development Articles
Alexandra Youngblood
Jaime Ma
Executive Editor for Communications
Patrick Gilmartin
Editors for Professional Articles and Notes & Comments
Cristina Jaramillo
Emily Lee
Evan Johnson
Mark Lipshultz
Matthew Freedman
Matthew Schwartz
Schedule of Events: RBFL Symposium
On February 26th, RBFL and Boston University School of Law will host an academic symposium on the topic of "Dodd-Frank, the Volcker Rule, and the Future of Banking in America." Please find the schedule of events for the symposium below. All are welcome! To register for the symposium, please go here.
Coffee and Centennial Breakfast – 8:30-9:00 AM
Lobby
Introductory Remarks – 9:00-9:15 AM
Room 103
Panel 1: The Volcker Rule – 9:15-10:45 AM
Room 103
Panelists:
- Jai Massari, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (Moderator)
- Anna Harrington, Board Of Governors of The Federal Reserve
- John Coates, Harvard Law School
- Grant F. Butler, State Street Bank And Trust Company
- Fadi Hanna, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co
Coffee Break – 10:45-11:00 AM
Lobby
Panel 2: Dodd-Frank’s Effect on Community Banks – 11:00 AM – 12:15 PM
Room 103
Panelists:
- Jay Tuli, Leader Bank
- Marshall Lux, Harvard Kennedy School (Moderator)
- John Conneeley, FDIC
- Terry Jorde, Independent Community Bankers of America.
Lunch: Provided by BU Law – 12:15 -1 PM
Lobby
Keynote Address – 1:00-1:30 PM
Room 103
Steve Kaplan, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Panel 3: Section 23A – 1:30- 2:30 PM
Room 103
Panelists:
- Chris Paridon, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (Moderator)
- Curtis Tao, Citigroup
- Kathleen Juhase, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
- Phil Wertz, Bank of America
Afternoon Coffee: Sponsored by the Banking LLM program – 2:30-2:45 PM
Lobby
Panel 4: Systemic Risk – 2:45-4:00 PM
Room 103
Panelists:
- Art Murton, FDIC
- Sean Collins, Investment Company Institute
- Cornelius Hurley, Boston University
- Laurence Kotlikoff, Boston University (Moderator)
Networking Reception: Sponsored by WilmerHale – 4:00-6:00 PM
Barristers Hall
Congratulations to the 2015-2016 RBFL Editors!
Congratulations to new RBFL editors for 2015-2016!
We are confident that you will continue the Review's tradition of excellence!
Editor-in-Chief
Justin Zeizel
Executive Editor for Management
Samuel Gorski
Executive Editor for Professional Articles
Maria Slobodchikova
Executive Editor for Notes & Comments
Tyler Spunaugle
Executive Editor for Symposium
William Cushing
Executive Editor of Marketing
Holly Ovington
Executive Editors for Development Articles
Sean Gordon
Alex Martin
Executive Editor for Communications
Silvia Stockman
Editors for Professional Articles and Notes & Comments
Steven Barros
Angela Dilenno
Graham Rogers
Gianna Sagan
Drew Singer
Congratulations to Ronald Borod, Winner of a Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing!
RBFL would like to congratulate Ronald S. Borod, who won a Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing in 2013 for his article, “Belling the Cat: Taming the Securitization Beast Without Killing It.” Mr. Borod, who is a structured finance and securitization lawyer at the international law firm, DLA Piper LLP (US) and who also is an Adjunct Professor at the BU Law School Graduate Program in Banking and Financial Law, where he teaches a course on Securitization and Structured Finance, wrote the article in connection with his participation as a panelist at the RBFL Shadow Banking Symposium in 2012. The article was selected by DLA Piper LLP (US) as its entrant in the Burton Awards Distinguished Legal Writing Competition, and it was ultimately selected as a Burton Award winner. The award was formally presented at a ceremony held in June 2013 at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Borod was invited to be a panelist at the RBFL Shadow Banking Symposium to speak on how the use of securitization technology as a liquidity creation and risk transfer vehicle was converted to an arbitrage delivery machine, with disastrous consequences for the financial markets and the broader economy. His winning article, "Belling the Cat: Taming the Securitization Beast Without Killing It," was published in RBFL’s spring 2012 symposium issue. The article develops his thesis at the Symposium into a detailed analysis of how securitization was used in the run-up to the 2008 financial collapse and how the legislative and regulatory responses need to strike the proper balance between ending all securitization—a result which would be damaging to the economy—and allowing the corruption of securitization to cause another financial meltdown—another result which is equally intolerable.
Thank you to Mr. Borod for taking the time to attend our 2012 symposium and publish your article in our journal. RBFL is proud to have published your winning article.
Congratulations to the 2014-2015 RBFL Editors!
Congratulations to new RBFL editors for 2014-2015!
We are confident that you will continue the Review's tradition of excellence!
Editor-in-Chief
Christopher Mercurio
Executive Editor for Management
Marisa Roman
Executive Editor for Professional Articles
Jacob Wimberly
Executive Editor for Notes & Comments
Thomas Markey
Executive Symposium Editor
Jennifer Gardner
Executive Editor of Marketing
Deniz Aktas
Executive Editors for Development Articles
Adam Santeusanio
Michael Vandenberg
Executive Editor for Communications
Adriana Henquen
Editors for Professional Articles and Notes & Comments
Tim Bolte
Lisa Bothwell
Chloe Brighton
Kyle Howard
Michael Kaplan
Lisa Ann Landry
Eva Maryskova
Jacqueline Nutile
Sean Rosenthal
RBFL Holds Distressed Municipal Finance Symposium
On Friday, February 7, 2014, the Review of Banking & Financial Law held its Distressed Municipal Finance Symposium. Thank you to all the of our wonderful speakers for sharing their time and intellect to make the conference a success!
Professor Clayton Gillette's keynote address was hit and one of the event's highlights. View it here: "Can Municipal Political Structure Improve Fiscal Performance?"
Time to Break up the Big Banks?
Harvey Rosenblum, Executive Vice President & Director of Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, visited BU Law School this week. Dr. Rosenblum delivered a lecture on 21st Century Financial Crises along with a few comments about his recent WSJ piece on shrinking the too-big-to-fail banks, co-authored with Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher.
As financial blogger Barry Ritholtz points out in a post this week on The Big Picture, Rosenblum is one among many distinguished financial experts, bankers, and economists who believe that the big banks should be broken up. Be sure to take a look at Ritholtz’s list with links to individual comments and proposals.
In the words of financial expert John Mauldin from his discussion of Cyprus and TBTF in this week’s Thoughts From the Frontline,
“The problem we have been discussing is not just a problem in Europe. In a general sense, it is the problem of banks that are too big to be allowed to fail. It is time to rein in the size of large banks before the next crisis. BAC and C are not just too big to fail, they are too big to effectively manage. If banks want to get larger, they should pay more deposit insurance to offset the implicit guarantees they get from taxpayers to cover losses beyond the ability of an FDIC to underwrite. I would go so far as to increase the capital requirements of banks as they increase in size, giving an incentive for management to break them up into smaller (and more manageable) pieces.”
RBFL Earns #1 Ranking
The RBFL has earned the top ranking among banking and financial law journals. Washington and Lee University Law School compiles annual journal rankings based on impact and the number of citations. A full report is available on the BU Law website.
Freedom of Information Act
In October of 2012, the United States Justice Department announced that it would pursue litigation against Bank of America for allegedly "selling thousands of toxic mortgage loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."[1] Also in late October of 2012, the Associated Press reported that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will begin supervising debt collectors in January of 2013.[2] Both stories may provoke academic inquiry by legal scholars and students. Because of the novelty of the stories, the only accessible information might be news accounts, which leave many questions unanswered. Fortunately, scholars can and should use the Freedom of Information Act to directly obtain information from the relevant federal agencies.[3]
While by no means a thorough manual for utilizing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), this article provides some suggestions for utilizing the FOIA to uncover information about government financial programs, using the CFPB scenario as an example.[4] Every executive agency must abide by the FOIA and has a link on its website with instructions to request information.[5] Requesters should submit a written letter directly to the agency, explaining the specific records they are seeking.[6] Requesters sometimes struggle to identify the specific records. Here are a few ways to identify relevant search material without knowing what might exist within the universe of records.
First, narrowing the date is particularly helpful; for this CFPB program, a good starting point would be February 2012 when the CFPB began accepting public comments.[7] If the documents produce relevant results indicating prior discussions, the requester can then submit a follow-up request. Second, some agencies use Boolean queries to search for records. Here, the requestor might want to specify search terms such as "debt collection", "nonbank larger participants," or "77 FR 9592" (the rule number). [8] Finally, the requester should determine whether he or she wants correspondence including e-mails (which should be specified), schedules for meetings, public comments, or other documents.
Here, the requester might want a list of all public comments. While the FOIA does not require an agency to create new documents, it may already have such a list. Requesting a list in order to narrow the search among the voluminous public comments is a good way to conduct an effective search. In addition, the requester can request what is known as a Vaughn Index. Some agencies may be willing to create this document, which agencies typically prepare for FOIA litigation. The index can be beneficial to both the requester and agency by narrowing the search to a manageable task. The requester should enumerate each document in a bulleted format.
An academic requester should also request a fee waiver. The FOIA provides for fee waivers for the search for certain classes of requesters including educational institutions.[9] Demonstrating eligibility for the waiver may include providing the school's information. The requester does not have to specify the purpose of his or her request. These exempted requesters still sometimes have to pay for the cost of duplication; thus, it would be wise to ask for available electronic copies or CDs.[10] Requesters can also set a fee limit to control the cost of duplication by stating the amount he or she is willing to pay. Declaring the fee limit in advance may expedite the process.
The agency will usually provide an acknowledgement letter. If a requester has not received this letter after approximately ten days, he or she should e-mail the FOIA liaison. As with all FOIA follow-ups, e-mail allows the requester to keep documentation on the request in case of future mediation or litigation. Within twenty business days, the agency should provide the requester with a response and relevant documents if there are any.[11] Most agencies fail to provide a response within the statutory limit, and while it is up to the requester to determine whether he or she wants to sue the agency, many judges will not entertain a lawsuit after only twenty days despite the statute being clear on the time limit. It is best to follow-up with the agency for a few additional weeks, documenting each follow-up. Should the requester still not receive a response, he or she could then sue the agency, which will be costly and require exhaustion of all administrative remedies including an administrative appeal. Alternatively, the requester may seek aid from the Office of Government Information Services, whose primary task is to resolve FOIA disputes.[12]
Once the requester receives the documents, he or she has the right to administratively appeal any redactions or determinations. Requesters should be aware that the FOIA provides for several exemptions.[13] The most common exemptions that requesters for financial programs will see include redactions for the deliberative process or for financial information.[14] Some agencies are heavy-handed in redacting, and an administrative appeal will be warranted. While the time to appeal an adverse determination is usually twenty business days, each agency has its own guidelines. The Federal Reserve, for example, requires an appeal within ten days.[15]
While scholars have many tools for researching financial laws, analysis of the financial crisis and subsequent regulation has heightened the need for these scholars to gain access to information not yet available to the public. In theory scholars should be evaluating information from a FOIA request within twenty days of launching an inquiry. In practice, it is incumbent upon the requester to follow-up with the agency, make the request precise, and maintain accurate documentation of all interactions with the federal agency to facilitate and expedite the request process.
[1] Jonathan Stempel, U.S. Sues Bank of America Over “Hustle†Mortgage Fraud, Reuters, Oct. 24, 2012, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/US-sues-Bank-of-America-for-US1B-ZDS92?opendocument&src=rss.
[2] Gov’t Consumer Finance Watchdog to Oversee Biggest Debt-Collection Companies, Associated Press, Oct. 23, 2012, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/govt-consumer-finance-watchdog-to-oversee-biggest-debt-collection-companies/2012/10/23/9da14e7e-1d5c-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html.
[3] See generally The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2012) (hereinafter “FOIAâ€).
[4] But see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Info. Policy, DOJ Guide to the Freedom of Info. Act (2009), http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_guide09.htm.
[5] FOIA (a), (f)(1); see e.g. Freedom of Information Act, Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau http://www.consumerfinance.gov/foia/ (last visited Nov. 2, 2012).
[6] The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(3)(A) (2012).
[7] Defining Larger Participants in Certain Consumer Financial Product and Service Markets, 77 Fed. Reg. 9592 (proposed Feb. 17, 2012) (to be codified at 12 CFR 1090), https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/02/17/2012-3775/defining-larger-participants-in-certain-consumer-financial-product-and-service-markets#p-33.
[8] See generally Edward Wyatt, New Federal Rules for Debt Collectors, N.Y. Times, Oct. 24, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/new-federal-rules-for-debt-collectors.html?_r=0; see also Defining Larger Nonbank Participants, Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, http://www.consumerfinance.gov/defining-larger-nonbank-participants/ (last visited Nov. 2, 2012); Defining Larger Participants in Certain Consumer Financial Product and Service Markets, 77 Fed. Reg. 9592 (proposed Feb. 17, 2012) (to be codified at 12 CFR 1090), https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/02/17/2012-3775/defining-larger-participants-in-certain-consumer-financial-product-and-service-markets#p-33.
[9] FOIA (a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
[10] FOIA (a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
[11] FOIA (a)(6)(A)(i).
[12] The Office of Gov’t Info. Serv., https://ogis.archives.gov/ (last visited Nov. 2, 2012).
[13] FOIA (b).
[14] FOIA (b)(4), (b)(5).
[15] Freedom of Information Office: FOIA Appeals, Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., http://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/appeals.htm (last visited Nov. 2, 2012).
Facebook: Hope & Litigation
On October 23, Facebook Inc. enjoyed its biggest single-day stock gain since its initial public offering.[1] The Wall Street Journal noted this surge came one day after Facebook announced strong revenue and promising progress from mobile ads.[2]
Facebook stock reached an intraday high of $24.25 and closed at $23.23. On October 22, Facebook stock languished at $19.50, 51.3% of its IPO price of $38.
The company report of its third quarter revenue increase topped analyst expectations. Importantly, sales of mobile ads contributed to 14% of revenue.[3] One year ago, sales of mobile ads did not contribute to revenue.[4] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says he believes in the strong opportunity of mobile products and mobile monetization.[5]
While there is excitement surrounding the mobile space, Facebook faces litigation—41 lawsuits from three different jurisdictions—over its unsuccessful IPO. Recently, on October 4, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation found in Facebook’s favor and granted a consolidation of the 41 cases in the Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.[6]
The Panel’s Transfer Order noted, “Thirty of these actions allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act) or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against movants and various underwriter defendants. Three of these actions assert derivative claims against certain of Facebook’s directors and officers in connection with alleged violations of the 1933 Act.”
Thomas Ajamie, managing partner at Ajamie LLP, said, “In many lawsuits of this type the cases are eventually dismissed by judges on legal grounds, and no damages are awarded. That still might happen here.”[7]
[1] Somini Sengupta, Facebook Posts Largest Single-Day Gain, N.Y. Times (Oct. 24, 2012).
[2] Matt Jarzemsky, Facebook Shares Nab Biggest Gain Since IPO on Earnings, Analyst Upgrades, Wall St. J. (Oct. 24, 2012), available at, http://online.wsj.com/article/
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] New Legal Review, How Facebook’s IPO spawned a network of litigation, available at http://www.cpaglobal.com/
[7] Id.