|
||||||||||||
|
|
Sign up to receive FORC Journals (and Alerts) via email.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION UNDER THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT
Van R. Mayhall, Jr., Esq. Peter A. Kopfinger, Esq. Rajini Sharma, Esq. Enacted into law on November 12,1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB") represents arevolution for the financial marketplace. GLB, by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and amending the Banking Holding Company Act, has eliminated the barriers that previously forced a separation of the banking, securities and the insurance businesses. GLB permits the formation of a single holding company structure, known as a financial holding company ("FHC"), which is authorized to provide a wide range of financial products and services, including insurance, to consumers through affiliated entities.
GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY: WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE FEDERAL GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE STATE GANDER - DEBT CANCELLATION AGREEMENTS
Hugh Alexander, Esq. Kevin Kuznicki, Esq. The authority of national banks to offer debt cancellation agreements ("DCAs") is clearly stated in numerous cases and OCC opinion letters and rulings, and most recently, in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB A"). This article addresses the issues related to the offering of DCAs by state-chartered banks.
"BORROWED WISDOM": FOSTERING A PARTICIPATORY REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT BY MAXIMIZING USE OF THE ADVISORY BODY CONCEPT
Richard R. Spencer, Jr., Esq. In the midst of the recurring debate over state versus federal insurance regulation, recently intensified by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"), a frequently heard complaint which is common to both regulatory levels is the absence of meaningful industry input into the regulatory process.2 This criticism is undoubtedly justified in many instances. There will always be occasions when regulatory officials, either by design or sheer workflow burden, undertake to establish and enforce regulatory policy without regard to a thorough consideration of the practical, financial, or operational impacts upon the entities being regulated. However, it is a fair question to ask whether, in many other instances, regulators would gladly entertain industry input but the insurance industry itself bears substantial responsibility for the regulatory "neglect" about which it complains.
STATE INITIATIVES IN RULEMAKING REFORM (1995-2000)
John A. Knapp, Esq. Julie A. Fishel, Esq. The tide of regulatory reform sweeping the states has not slowed since the issue of regulatory reform and "freeing Americans from bureaucratic red tape" was given momentum during the 1994 congressional elections. However, it has been state lawmakers and executives who have taken and maintained the lead in implementing regulatory reform. At least thirty-one states have initiated regulatory reform since 1995, and legislation was debated, if not enacted, in several other states.
STATE HEALTH INSURANCE RISK POOL ASSESSMENTS ON EXCESS OR STOP-LOSS POLICIES ISSUED TO SELF-INSURED ERISA PLANS: CAN ERISA PREEMPTION BE AVOIDED?
Nick Thompson, Esq. A number of state Comprehensive Health Insurance Pools ("CHIP") function as the "alternative mechanism" under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 by providing health insurance coverage to citizens who are uninsurable individuals. Because of the high-risk nature of the populations that these CHIP plans serve, adequate funding is crucial. Some CHIP plans are based on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Health Plan for Uninsurable Individuals Model Act, which authorizes two dedicated sources of funding. The first are premiums charged to the CHIP enrollees, which are generally designed to cover two-thirds of the costs of the CHIP plan obligations. The second source of funding is assessments imposed on insurers that write insurance in that state's health insurance market. If a state CHIP plan attempts to assess excess or stop-loss policies purchased by self-insured employee welfare benefit plans, then a legal question arises as to whether such assessments of excess or stop-loss insurance policies are preempted by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 19743 ("ERISA"). This Article will specifically address the issue of ERISA preemption of these assessments. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
