The Consultation document seeks views on the Government’s legal interpretation of the judgment and the accompanying draft regulations that amend the Equality Act. It also seeks comments on the Government’s impact assessment and requests additional data that would contribute to a better understanding of the impact on consumers and insurers. Finally, it asks for views on some of the key issues arising from the judgment, such as the scope of indirect discrimination.

There are unintended consequences of free markets … It’s not capitalism that has been the problem, but irresponsible governments and politicians who have allowed the financial system to explode by permitting the build-up of ludicrous amounts of debt and leverage.

Why did these irresponsible governments allow this? Because financial institutions told them too much regulation would interfere with their ability to compete with institutions based in other jurisdictions. And this is still going on. See, for example, this week’s news that Cameron is determined to protect the City of London from harmful European regulation.

In this report, the following classification is used to classify the status of adoption of regulatory rules:
1. Draft regulation not published: this status corresponds to cases where no draft law, regulation, or other official document has been made public to detail the planned content of the domestic regulatory rules. This status includes cases where a jurisdiction has communicated high-level information about its implementation plans but not detailed rules.
2. Draft regulation published: this status corresponds to cases where a draft law, regulation or other official document is already publicly available, for example for public consultation or legislative deliberations. The content of the document has to be specific enough to be implemented when adopted.
3. Final rule published: this status corresponds to cases where the domestic legal or regulatory framework has been finalised and approved but is still not applicable to banks.
4. Final rule in force: This status corresponds to cases where the domestic legal and regulatory framework is already applied to banks.

The CSSF considers that this Decision, as from the notification thereof to ARM (which has occurred today), entails a suspension of any payment by ARM and prohibition for ARM, under penalty of voidance, to take any measures other than protective measures, unless otherwise authorized by the CSSF acting as supervisory commissioner (“commissaire de surveillance”).
If unchallenged, the Decision will become final one month after its notification. Once the Decision is final, the district court dealing with commercial matters shall, as a consequence thereof, be requested to pronounce the dissolution and order the liquidation of ARM.

Why is the SEC backdating documents (OIG Report stating the SEC’s Office of Administrative Services backdated a justification an approval of the SEC’s lease of premises)?

Is there a connection between citizens’ carelessness about paying attention to the rules and a regulatory agency’s carelessness about compliance with formalities? I suspect so.

Tuesday, 30th September, 2008 will go down in history as the blackest day in Ireland since the Civil War broke out.
The 30th September 2008 was the day on which the then Government extended the infamous guarantee to the Irish banks and decided that Anglo Irish Bank should be supported and maintained.
It quickly became apparent that Anglo was insolvent in the absence of State support, that the other banks were illiquid and that the banking system was not fit for purpose.
The banks were too big for the economy. The JCB and the swinging crane had become the logos of the banks, and Irish bankers were as likely to be funding apartment blocks on the Black Sea or dabbling in property schemes in Singapore, as they were to be investing in the Irish economy.
We are now in the third year of the banking crisis. The previous Government failed to act. They ducked and dived and procrastinated as they lurched from one crisis to the next. They went through periods of denial and periods of self justification. They paved the road to disaster with good intentions.
They never fixed the broken banks however.

G-20 Ministers Agree ‘Historic’ Reforms in IMF Governance

The Financial Stability Board published a report on Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms

The Joint Forum published a Report on Developments in Modelling Risk Aggregation

The Basel Committee published a report to the G20 on its response to the crisis

The SEC has proposed rules on shareholder approval of executive compensation and golden parachutes, investment managers’ reporting of proxy votes, swap trading and clearing, issuer review of assets backing ABS

Agreement on the alternative investment funds directive in the EU

The EU Commission published Communications on An EU Framework for Crisis Management in the Financial Sector and on Taxation of the Financial Sector and a Green Paper on Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis (and there’s the Final Report on Strengthening Economic Governance by a task force to the Council).

Since foreign nonbank companies can be designated, what role should international considerations play in designating companies? Are there unique considerations for foreign nonbank companies that should be taken into account?

And the Volcker Rule RFI asks:

How should the international context be considered when implementing the Volcker Rule? Are
there any factors or considerations that should be taken into account regarding the application of the Volcker Rule to banking entities or nonbank financial companies that operate outside the United States? What issues does implementation of the Volcker Rule present with respect to the following:(i) Domestic banking entities that have access to foreign exchanges, (ii) foreign affiliates of domestic banking entities, and (iii) foreign non-bank financial companies