Can it really be the case that a Governor of the Federal Reserve cannot be removed from that position following the discovery that she may have committed an economic fraud before assuming office? Even if it turns out that the fraud continued and was not corrected after the Governor assumed office? This logic is made even more disquieting given the brief recitation by the Court as to the conduct of Governor Cook with regard to alleged mortgage fraud. The facts as described, do not look good…

The rules at issue were not well-drafted as to the details and were overly expansive in the big picture. Salvaging the rules would seem to require a do-over. It is hard to imagine why that should be a good use of SEC resources.  

There is a further issue to the regulation of proxy voting, even more significant than the question of whether proxy advisors should be regulated. That is the question of the extent to which the US government itself attempted to sway the proxy process on politically charged ESG issues.  

The SEC's rulemaking agenda for Spring 2025 is almost wholly transformed from what it was in Fall 2024.  

Among the items dropped: (i) as to issuers of securities: Enhancement of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, (ii) as to broker-dealers and crypto market participants: Amendments to the Definition of Exchange, and Regulation Best Execution; and (iii) as to advisers: a trio of obligations: Enhanced Disclosures of ESG Practices, Cybersecurity Risk…