Montgomery Corporation Case

In 1974, the Southeastern promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad case came to the Supreme Court. This came to the court because they believed it violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad it was argued that Southeastern Promotions was stripped of their freedom of speech because they were denied the use of the Tivoli Theater in Chattanooga, Tennessee to put on the rock musical Hair. The Supreme Court had to uphold the First Amendment while still allowing the theater to keep their reputation of being a family establishment.

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

This case was also cited in PEABODY COAL CO., LLC v. BARNHART., 469 F.Supp.2d 240 (2007) case held in the United States District Court, D. Delaware. The decision on this case was made on January 11, 2007. According to this case, on September 14, 2005, the plaintiffs Peabody Coal Company, LLC (“Peabody”) and Eastern Associated Coal Corporation ("EACC") filed suit against defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart ("Barnhart"), the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). Plaintiffs' complaint that Barnhart's (defendant) actions of assigning them (plaintiffs) the responsibility for funding health and death benefits for certain retired coal industry employees violated both § 9706 of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 ("Coal Act"), 26 U.S.C.

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

Randall submits that building firewalls and Chinese walls will abolish the synergies between financial and non-financial institutions. In addition, Randall also points out that government should restrict the areas where synergies is not required to cancel out by building Chinese walls and where the risk is acceptable rather than stop supporting creditors of fragile banks. Randall suggests that there should be barrier for non-banks to enter into banking sector in order to avoid the enlargement of safety net (Randall, 63-74).

Differences in banking regulations across borders permit the most efficient channeling of funds from lenders to borrowers, leading to increased investment and thus increased GDP. Therefore it is imperative that policy makers prudently evaluate the possible consequences and benefits of harmonized banking regulations, as demonstrated by similar regulations instituted domestically, before any such endeavor is embarked upon.

The proposal currently has nine Republican signatures and nine Democrat, which means that it has enough to clear both the banking panel and the Senate if all Republicans agree with it. There has been some strong opposition again the legislation as Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown says, “it would do little to help working families”. However, Senator Crapo believes that this is the first proposal with a genuine chance of making it to the president. The authors conclude the article with two statements, the first explains that banks with assets between $50-$100 billion would be immediately exempt, and banks between $100-$250 could be exempt after 18 months. The second statement was from an analyst at Evercore ISI saying that he wasn’t sure if these regulation changes would result in cost savings because banks have been viewing them as sunk costs.

Financial legislation has always played a crucial role in the safety and soundness of the banking industry. Since the 2008 financial crisis, mostly caused by loose lending practices and lack of credit standards, bank regulation pressures have increased considerably. The increased regulatory burden is playing a toll on community financial institutions who cannot keep up with the overhead cost it takes to meet the new regulations. It is frustrating community bankers since most new regulation was written for the “too big to fail” banks as they were the majority driver of the subpar lending practices.

With this title two new government departments are created The Financial stability Oversight Council and the Office of Financial Research. The authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is it expanded also to allow them to supervise nonbank financial companies and certain bank holding companies that could affect the health of the country’s economy.

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress recognized the need to regulate nonbank institutions. Many of the financially distressed institutions were not regulated by the same standards bank holdings were. As a result The Financial Stability Oversight Committee was created under Title I of the Dobb-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The committee was signed into law by Barack Obama on July 21, 2010 and serves three primary purposes. One is to authorize and determine nonbank financial institutions that if under material financial distress or failure, can threaten the financial stability of the United States. The designated institutions are referred to as systematically important financial institutions (SIFIs) and are subject to the regulation and supervision of the Federal Reserve System (Board of Governors). Another purpose of the committee is to promote market discipline and eliminate the expectation of companies stakeholder’s relying on the U.S. government bailout as safeguard from failure or loss. Last but not least the committee is also expected to recommend standards and safeguards for U.S. and global financial systems. In the executive summary of the 2014/15 annual reports, the committee continues focusing on three areas of financial risk: cyber security, foreign markets and the housing finance reform.

On Monday evening, industry trade groups were very happy with the proposal although some were looking for more answers on specific complex questions like the level regulators need to set for a bank's assets prior to imposing stricter rules on them.

(Lecture 2, Law of Commerce, Investment and Banking). For example, Martin Wolf wrote in 2009: "...an enormous part of what banks did in the early part of this decade – the off-balance-sheet vehicles, the derivatives and the 'shadow banking system ' itself – was to find a way round regulation." (Wolf M., 2009). Off balance sheet financing made it possible for firms to look less leveraged and allowed them to borrow at cheaper rates. (Simkovic M., 2009). Analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed that big banks hide their risk levels just prior to opening data quarterly to the public. (Kelly K., McGinty T., Fitzpatrick D., 2010). From this moment it is possible to ask the question: What did regulators do at that moment? Critics have argued that the regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation, such as the increasing importance of the shadow banking system, derivatives and off-balance sheet financing. In other cases, laws were changed or enforcement weakened in parts of the financial system. Several critics have argued that the most critical role for regulation is to make sure that financial institutions have the ability or capital to deliver on their commitments. Another critics have also noted de facto deregulation through a shift in market share toward the least regulated portions of the mortgage market. (Simkovic M., 2011). In overall, regulatory system makes bad impression as it seems not working properly. Author Roger

Technological advancement has had a gigantic effect in the banking industry. Over the past few decades, the financial services industry has changed considerably with banking transforming from the pen and paper method to the computers and internet method. The pen and paper method took weeks or even months for the transaction to be eventually completed, and then the dramatic introduction of the computer and internet method which changed that time frame to only a matter of seconds to be completed, which reduced the amount of time and labor needed to complete a transaction significantly. Banking is considered one of the most important economic sectors with it being severely influential and responsive to any little change, whether it is domestic or international. Some extreme changes that were brought about by the development of this new technology turned into a globalized nature for the financial services industry. One stroke of a key on a computer could and would change a person 's life extensively or even have a global impact. The new technologies that were created and introduced changed how the consumers managed their money from that time on. Technology has helped to protect peoples’ hard earned money and make it much more impossible for people to be able to write out bad checks or even holding up a bank. The advancement in technology however, also came with some security risks as most things do, that could affect the money that people trusted with the bank and

Government regulation aimed to curb banks that were thought TBTF is now leading to the formation of even larger and more systemically important institutions. A TBTF firm is, as

New financial instruments are in need because of the unpredictability of a great number of factors, ranging from oil price, interest rates to inflation. With the application of high-tech financial instruments, the bankers are able to predict the future market and make proper decisions. Last but not least, in accordance with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) annual reports, “regulation will act as a catalyst for improving significantly the operational infrastructure of the market and modernizing the business models of many firms”. In the other words, the function of regulation is avoiding the banks to pursuit profits by taking advantage of some deficiently regulated markets. Therefore, it can be concluded that the factors, which are the rise of information technology, the instability of financial environment and the demand of regulation, determine the trend of financial innovation which can offer convenience and protection to both the banks and the customers.