Author: josecarlos

(Reuters) – Breakups are rarely easy, but the acrimony over a busted blockbuster deal can rival finger-pointing by the bitterest of star-crossed lovers.

Consider the blame game unfolding now between Kroger and Albertsons in Delaware Chancery Court, where each grocery chain is attempting to fault the other for the failure of their $25 billion merger, which was blocked by judges in both federal and state courts in December.

To hear Albertsons tell it in its Chancery Court lawsuit seeking billions of dollars, Kroger had “a classic case of buyer’s remorse” after negative reaction to the merger by investors, workers and politicians, as well as falling post-pandemic profits. As a result, Kroger allegedly failed to take “any and all actions” possible to win antitrust approval for the deal, as required by the merger agreement.

In a countersuit made public on Tuesday, Kroger says Albertsons “secretly coordinated” with C&S Wholesale Grocers, which was set to buy hundreds of grocery stores that the parties planned to divest, in a “surreptitious scheme” to pursue their own regulatory strategy.

Kroger is seeking unspecified damages from Albertsons for willfully breaching the merger agreement.

Also jumping in the fray, C&S on March 14 sued Kroger in Delaware Superior Court seeking payment of a $125 million termination fee it says it’s entitled to under its agreement with Kroger.

This isn’t the first time companies in a merger gone wrong have sued each other in Delaware, though the cases tend to be highly fact-specific. To misquote Tolstoy, every failed merger fails in its own way.

Still, a 2020 decision by Vice Chancellor Travis Laster holding that Cigna breached its obligation to try to close a $54 billion merger with Anthem – but that the merger would probably have been enjoined anyway, so Anthem wasn’t entitled to recover damages – will likely come into play in allocating the burden of proof for the thwarted grocery union.

A Kroger spokesperson declined comment.

Albertsons in a statement said it was “steadfastly committed to the success of the combination,” but that Kroger “did not hold up its end of the bargain.”

A C&S spokesperson said via email that the New Hampshire-based company “worked tirelessly in support of the merger and divestiture, including communicating with both Kroger and Albertsons executives.”

Announced in 2022, the proposed merger would have been the largest-ever supermarket combination.

Kroger – operating stores under regional names including Fry’s, Harris Teeter and King Soopers – and Albertsons – whose regional banners include Jewel-Osco, Safeway and Vons – together have about 5,000 supermarkets across 48 states.

Going into the deal, Kroger anticipated it would have to sell off stores in locations where the two chains competed head-to-head to appease the Federal Trade Commission and state regulators. Per the merger agreement, Kroger agreed to divest up to 650 properties and lined up C&S as the buyer.

Like many antitrust fights, market definition was key.

Kroger argued its grocery competitors nowadays go beyond traditional supermarkets to include retail behemoths like Walmart, Costco and Amazon. If Kroger could convince regulators to adopt such a broad view of the competitive landscape, perhaps divesting a few hundred stores might assuage their concerns that the merger would lead to higher prices for consumers.

At its first meeting with the FTC, Kroger proposed shedding just 238 stores, Albertsons said. Kroger subsequently offered to divest 413 stores to C&S, later upping the total to 541, then 579 outlets.

Albertsons argues this was the wrong approach, calling Kroger’s position “indefensible.” According to Albertsons, Kroger “squandered its credibility with regulators” by refusing to propose a viable divestment package, its lawyers from Williams & Connolly; Selendy Gay; Dechert; and Richards, Layton & Finger wrote in the Delaware complaint.

Albertsons also says Kroger shut it out of the “disorganized [and] protracted” process of selecting C&S as the purchaser, and that picking a wholesaler with a limited track record of running retail outlets “introduced new obstacles” for regulatory approval.

The FTC along with attorneys general from eight states and the District of Columbia sued to block the deal in 2024, while Colorado and Washington filed suits on their own.

Albertsons says it’s owed a $600 million contractual break-up fee since the merger failed to close by the outside date set in the agreement, plus additional damages.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Kroger was in charge of antitrust regulatory strategy, while Albertsons was obliged to cooperate and support the effort. Kroger faults Albertsons for allegedly engaging in “secret communications” with C&S, urging it to tell regulators it needed more stores from Kroger to compete effectively post-merger, Kroger counsel from Weil Gotshal & Manges and Ross Aronstam & Moritz wrote.

Offering to divest more assets is of course one way to mitigate antitrust concerns, but here, Kroger said Albertsons’ rogue strategy backfired, making regulators believe C&S was “a weak buyer that would not be an effective competitor regardless of the number of stores it received.”

Kroger also alleges Albertsons manufactured a “faux litigation record” of “lawyer-crafted letters” so it would be ready to sue its would-be partner for billions of dollars if the merger failed to close. To bolster the allegations, Kroger notes that shortly after court decisions enjoining the merger were issued, Albertsons moved to terminate the deal and sued Kroger in Delaware for damages.

“No doubt capable counsel represents Albertsons, but even they could not draft a 140-page complaint in a few hours,” Kroger said.

Was having a complaint ready to go nefarious? Or just advance planning?

The Delaware court will decide this and other questions in weighing whether the union was ever meant to be, with a possible trial late next year or early 2027.

(JD Supra) On January 14, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service and the US Treasury Department issued proposed regulations under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to implement changes under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

Code Section 162(m) prohibits publicly traded companies from deducting compensation paid to covered employees if that compensation exceeds $1 million in a taxable year.1

Background

Historically, a covered employee included the company’s principal executive officer (PEO) and principal financial officer (PFO) and the three highest-compensated executive officers other than the PEO or PFO (original covered employees), as well as any employee who had qualified as an original covered employee since January 1, 2017.

In 2021, however, Code Section 162(m) was amended to broaden the definition of covered employees—effective for taxable years starting after December 31, 2026—to include any employee who is among the five highest-compensated employees for the taxable year other than the PEO or PFO or the three highest-compensated executive officers, regardless of officer-level status (additional covered employees). Notably, for the purpose of assessing compensation deductibility for additional covered employees, these rules apply only for the fiscal year in which an employee qualifies as an additional covered employee. Therefore, an employee could be an additional covered employee for one year but not qualify in any subsequent year.

The new proposed regulations provide clarification on the determination of additional covered employees as described below.

The Proposed Regulations

The new proposed regulations borrow the definition of employee from Section 3401(c) of the Code, which includes a common-law employee and any officer of a company. The regulations also provide that an employee of any member of an affiliated group that includes the publicly traded company may be an additional covered employee.

Further, to determine whether an employee is an additional covered employee, the proposed regulations define compensation as compensation that would but for Section 162(m) be allowable as a deduction. This is a departure from the definition of compensation applicable to the original covered employees, which is defined as the total compensation required to be disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table under Securities and Exchange Commission rules. This means that a separate methodology for calculating compensation under Section 162(m) will be required for additional covered employees.

As for timing of the new rules, the proposed regulations are scheduled to apply to compensation that is otherwise deductible for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026, or the date of the final regulations, whichever is later.

[1]This dollar threshold is not indexed or otherwise adjusted for inflation.

[View source.]

The views expressed in any and all content distributed by Newstex and its re-distributors (collectively, the “Newstex Authoritative Content”) are solely those of the respective author(s) and not necessarily the views of Newstex or its re-distributors. Stories from such authors are provided “AS IS,” with no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided in Newstex Authoritative Content are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. Newstex Authoritative Content is not “read and approved” before it is posted. Accordingly, neither Newstex nor its re-distributors make any claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained therein or linked to from such content, nor do they take responsibility for any aspect of such content. The Newstex Authoritative Content shall be construed as author-based content and commentary. Accordingly, no warranties or other guarantees are offered as to the quality of the opinions, commentary or anything else appearing in such Newstex Authoritative Content. Newstex and its re-distributors expressly reserve the right to delete stories at its and their sole discretion.

(Reuters) U.S. chipmaker Nvidia has sued EU antitrust regulators for accepting an Italian request last year to scrutinise its acquisition of AI startup Run:ai, saying they had flouted an earlier court ruling restricting their merger powers on minor deals.

While the case does not have any impact on the Run:ai deal which was eventually approved by the EU competition watchdog in December last year, a ruling favouring Nvidia may further curb the regulator’s merger power.

Businesses have been concerned in recent years with the European Commission flexing a rarely-used power called Article 22 to assess small deals even though these are below the EU’s merger revenue threshold.

The EU executive says it is concerned about killer acquisitions in which big companies buy startups to shut them down, but companies criticise such moves as regulatory over-reach.

Europe’s highest court, however, in a landmark ruling in September last year said the Commission cannot encourage or accept referrals of deals without a European dimension from national enforcers when the latter do not have the powers to examine such deals under their own national laws.

Nvidia cited the ruling in its lawsuit filed with the Luxembourg-based General Court, Europe’s second-highest, according to a filing on the court website.

“The decision unlawfully accepted a referral request from the Italian Autorità Garante della Concorrenza (AGCM), regarding a transaction that fell below the EU Merger Regulation and member state merger control thresholds, based on the AGCM’s exercise of loosely defined, ex post, discretionary call-in powers,” Nvidia said.

It said regulators’ decision to take up the Italian request breaches principles of institutional balance, legal certainty, proportionality and equal treatment.

The case is T-15/25 Nvidia v Commission.

(Syndigate Media Inc.) Coinbase Robinhood SEC With the SEC stepping back from aggressive enforcement, Robinhood’s clearance signals a potential turning point toward clearer, more structured crypto oversight. Investors and crypto platforms alike now face a reshaped regulatory environment, influencing strategic decisions moving forward. Last updated: February 24, 2025 13:39 EST Author Julia Smith Author Julia Smith About Author

Julia is an experienced editor with a passion for covering a wide variety of beats. She loves all things politics and regularly covers regulatory updates on emerging technology here for Crypto News.

Author Profile Share Copied Last updated: February 24, 2025 13:39 EST Why Trust Cryptonews Cryptonews has covered the cryptocurrency industry topics since 2017, aiming to provide informative insights to our readers. Our journalists and analysts have extensive experience in market analysis and blockchain technologies. We strive to maintain high editorial standards, focusing on factual accuracy and balanced reporting across all areas – from cryptocurrencies and blockchain projects to industry events, products, and technological developments. Our ongoing presence in the industry reflects our commitment to delivering relevant information in the evolving world of digital assets. Read more about Cryptonews

Key Takeaways:

The SEC officially ended its investigation into Robinhood Crypto on February 21, 2025, without pursuing enforcement action.This move, together with the SEC dropping its lawsuit against Coinbase, indicates a broader shift toward lighter cryptocurrency regulation under the current administration.Robinhood has urged the SEC to transition from enforcement-based regulation to establishing clear, structured guidelines for digital assets.

Robinhood Crypto announced on Monday that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had closed its investigation on February 21 without enforcement action, effectively ending concerns over alleged sales of securities on the platform.

According to a February 24 press release, the federal agency’s enforcement division recently notified Robinhood on February 21 that it had closed the investigation with “with no action” as it had “no intent to move forward with an enforcement action.”

“Let me be crystal clear—this investigation never should have been opened,” said Dan Gallagher, Chief Legal, Compliance, and Corporate Affairs Officer of Robinhood Markets, Inc. “Robinhood Crypto always has and will always respect federal securities laws and never allowed transactions in securities.”

Crypto Enforcement Actions Ease Following Gensler’s Exit

The SEC initially launched its probe into Robinhood Crypto last spring, notifying Robinhood’s digital asset branch via a Wells Notice that it would likely face regulatory consequences for allegedly selling securities.

Former SEC chair Gary Gensler faced criticism from the cryptocurrency community due to his aggressive approach to digital asset regulation, which included lawsuits against prominent crypto entities such as Kraken and Ripple.

However, the regulator scaled back its aggressive crypto enforcement stance after Gensler resigned following the election of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Last week, Coinbase also announced that the SEC formally dropped its investigation into the crypto exchange.

“This is a victory not just for Coinbase, but for our customers, the United States, and personal freedom,” Coinbase stated in a Friday press release.

Meanwhile, Robinhood urged the regulating body to “establish a clear path forward” in light of easing its strategy toward the crypto sector as a whole.

The press release emphasized that the SEC should shift from regulation by enforcement toward clear and comprehensive regulatory guidelines, giving market participants greater clarity on digital asset rules.

A Moment of Reassessment

The conclusion of the SEC investigation serves as a catalyst for a comprehensive review of market practices and regulatory methods.

It presents platforms like Robinhood with an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to compliance amid shifting oversight tactics.

At the same time, investors are challenged to revisit their strategies and consider how these recent developments might influence both immediate market behavior and longer-term growth.

This period of reflection encourages all stakeholders to consider the broader implications of regulatory decisions on investor sentiment and market discipline.

By engaging in this reassessment, market participants can contribute to shaping a more thoughtful approach to digital asset management.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
How might shifting regulatory attitudes toward crypto affect new startups in this sector?

Newly founded crypto companies could face fewer immediate enforcement threats and instead be encouraged to follow clearer guidelines for launch and expansion. According to recent discussions among legal experts, a focus on transparency and structured compliance from the outset can help startups avoid legal troubles down the road.

Will the SEC’s decision to dismiss investigations encourage other agencies to revise their approach to digital assets?

It’s possible. Different agencies, such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), often watch how the SEC proceeds with enforcement in emerging markets. A softening stance from the SEC may prompt other regulators to reevaluate how they classify and supervise digital assets, potentially leading to more cohesive federal-level policies.

What are some indicators that crypto regulation might be moving toward a more formalized framework?

Legislative proposals, public consultations, and increased collaboration with industry stakeholders usually indicate a trend toward formalized guidelines. For instance, the SEC’s request for public comments on crypto-related rulemaking has grown in recent years, signaling a willingness to gather diverse perspectives before finalizing regulations.

How can individual investors stay informed about regulatory developments and protect their holdings?

Investors should regularly monitor announcements on the SEC’s official website, follow trusted crypto news outlets like CryptoNews.com, and consider seeking advice from financial professionals well-versed in digital assets. Maintaining secure storage solutions (e.g., hardware wallets) and using reputable exchanges also helps safeguard one’s portfolio.

Does this shift signal that mainstream financial institutions will adopt crypto services more readily?

While it’s not a guarantee, a more defined regulatory path generally reduces uncertainty, which can encourage traditional banks and financial platforms to explore crypto services. Many industry analysts note that clear legal frameworks tend to attract institutional participation, potentially accelerating the integration of digital assets into everyday financial products.

Follow us on Google News Trending News RecommendedPopular Crypto TopicsPrice Predictions

How Tether Co-Founder William Quigley Views Crypto Regulations in Trump’s Second TermTrump Appoints PayPal Veteran David Sacks as ‘White House AI and Crypto Czar’Artist Ye, Formerly Known as Kanye West, Teases ‘Swasticoin’ Token LaunchAnalysis: Will Bitcoin Price Hold at $95K Resistance or Is Rally Ahead?Pi Coin Plunges 70%, Then Surges—What’s Behind the Blame Game?

Altcoin News Crypto Products See $508M Outflows, XRP Leads Altcoin Inflows 2025-02-24 12:02:01, by Hassan Shittu Ethereum News Bybit CEO Vows to Recover Stolen Funds, Discusses Possibility of Ethereum Blockchain Rollout 2025-02-23 12:36:01, by Ruholamin Haqshanas Altcoin News Bybit CEO: ETH Gap Closed Post $1.4B Hack, Exchange to Publish POR Audit 2025-02-24 04:51:51, by Shalini Nagarajan Best Crypto to Buy Now in February 2025 – Top Crypto to Invest In 2025-02-19 06:00:00, by Ilija Rankovic New Crypto Coins to Invest in February 2025 2025-02-24 11:12:39, by Ines S. Tavares 9 Best Crypto Presales to Invest In Now – Upcoming Token Sales 2024-11-05 06:00:51, by Medb Kiely-Cuddy 10 New Upcoming Coinbase Listings in February 2025 2025-02-05 12:45:30, by Ihssan El Medkouri 12 New & Upcoming Binance Listings in 2025 2025-02-19 12:40:00, by Ines S. Tavares Next Crypto to Explode: Top 11 Coins in February 2025 2024-09-11 14:50:06, by Ilija Rankovic Bitcoin (BTC) Price Prediction 2025 – 2034 2024-10-19 00:00:00, by Leon Waters Ripple (XRP) Price Prediction 2025, 2026 – 2030 2024-08-28 00:00:00, by Eric Huffman Ethereum Price Prediction 2025–2030: Will ETH Reach $5,000? 2024-08-28 00:00:00, by Ben Beddow

(Bankr, News & Analysis) Party City Holdco Inc. is seeking bankruptcy court approval for two separate agreements to sell designation rights for its store leases to Five Below Inc. and Dollar Tree Stores Inc., as the retailer continues its restructuring efforts.

In filings with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 24-90621), Party City outlined plans to transfer lease designation rights for 44 locations to Five Below and 148 locations to Dollar Tree. The agreements would allow both retailers to evaluate and potentially take over select Party City locations.

Under the Five Below agreement, Party City would receive $2 million upfront, plus $70,000 for each additional lease assignment over 29 leases. The Dollar Tree deal includes a $1 million base purchase price, with $65,000 for each lease assignment exceeding ten locations.

Both agreements include provisions for the buyers to cover certain carrying costs and March rent payments for designated locations. The deals have expiration dates in spring 2025, with Five Below’s rights expiring April 30 and Dollar Tree’s on March 31, with an option to extend to April 30.

Porter Hedges LLP and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP are representing Party City in the bankruptcy proceedings. Emergency hearings on the motions are scheduled for February 26 and February 28, respectively.

The retailer, which filed for Chapter 11 protection in December 2024, is working to maximize value for its estate through these strategic lease transactions.

This article was prepared using Stretto Conductor, our new AI-powered assistant that’s here to help. Stretto Conductor was able to create this summary of multiple court filings in less than a minute. Always review the underlying docket filings for accurate information. The information and responses generated by Stretto Conductor may contain errors or inaccuracies and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional or legal advice.

Document length: 47 pages (combined)

The views expressed in any and all content distributed by Newstex and its re-distributors (collectively, the “Newstex Authoritative Content”) are solely those of the respective author(s) and not necessarily the views of Newstex or its re-distributors. Stories from such authors are provided “AS IS,” with no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided in Newstex Authoritative Content are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. Newstex Authoritative Content is not “read and approved” before it is posted. Accordingly, neither Newstex nor its re-distributors make any claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained therein or linked to from such content, nor do they take responsibility for any aspect of such content. The Newstex Authoritative Content shall be construed as author-based content and commentary. Accordingly, no warranties or other guarantees are offered as to the quality of the opinions, commentary or anything else appearing in such Newstex Authoritative Content. Newstex and its re-distributors expressly reserve the right to delete stories at its and their sole discretion.

(Reuters) -OpenAI on Friday rejected a $97.4 billion bid from a consortium led by billionaire Elon Musk for the ChatGPT maker, saying the startup is not for sale and that any future bid would be disingenuous.

The unsolicited approach is Musk’s latest attempt to block the startup he co-founded with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman — but later left — from becoming a for-profit firm, as it looks to secure more capital and stay ahead in the artificial intelligence race.

“OpenAI is not for sale, and the board has unanimously rejected Mr. Musk’s latest attempt to disrupt his competition. Any potential reorganization of OpenAI will strengthen our nonprofit and its mission to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity,” it said on X, quoting OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor on behalf of the board.

Musk’s lawyer Marc Toberoff, in a statement, responded that OpenAI is putting control of the for-profit enterprise up for sale, and said the move will “enrich its certain board members rather than the charity.”

OpenAi in late December had outlined plans to revamp its structure, saying it would create a public benefit corporation to make it easier to “raise more capital than we’d imagined,” and remove the restrictions imposed on the startup by its current nonprofit parent.

Altman on Monday had rebuffed the consortium’s offer with a “no thank you” posted on X, prompting Musk to retort: “swindler.” On Tuesday, Altman told news website Axios that OpenAI was not for sale.

Musk’s lawyers, in a court filing on Wednesday, said the consortium, which includes Musk’s own AI startup xAI, would withdraw its bid for OpenAI’s non-profit arm if it drops plans to become a for-profit entity.

“Two days ago, you filed a pleading in court adding new material conditions to the proposal. As a result of that filing, it is now apparent that your clients’ much publicized ‘bid’ is in fact not a bid at all,” the OpenAI board said, according to a letter signed by William Savitt, a lawyer representing the company, and sent to Toberoff on Friday.

Other investors in the consortium include Valor Equity Partners, Baron Capital and Hollywood power broker Ari Emanuel.

Altman and Musk have been at loggerheads for years.

After Musk’s departure in 2019, OpenAI created a for-profit arm that has drawn billions of dollars in funding, sparking allegations from Musk that the startup breached its original mission by putting profit ahead of the larger public good.

Musk sued Altman, OpenAI and its biggest backer, Microsoft, in August last year for alleged breach of contract.

In November, Musk asked a federal court for a preliminary injunction to block OpenAI from moving to a for-profit structure.

(American Banker) It is tempting, especially for newcomers, to think modernizing bank oversight is as simple as ripping pages from the Code of Federal Regulation. The fleeting sense of euphoria such a simplification might provide to those who have operated under our supervisory system will soon fade, particularly if a financial crisis ensues. And if the missing pages are replaced only by the judgment of agency supervisors, the regulated may even long for the certainty that published regulations once provided.

A truly effective regulatory modernization effort should be precise — favoring a scalpel over a meat axe — and must address three related issues. First, it should establish a sound basis for determining which entities must comply with regulatory pronouncements and which, if any, are exempt. Second, it must ensure clarity in the scope of regulation, including the topics covered, the level of specificity provided, and the methods of communicating regulatory requirements — minimizing burden while maximizing safety and soundness and the honest treatment of customers. Finally, a transparent and impartial mechanism is needed for settling disagreements between the supervisors and the supervised.

Determining which entities must comply with bank regulations — and which, if any, are exempt — is a critical issue, particularly as the increasingly risky unregulated shadow banking system continues to expand and create an uneven playing field that increases risk for the entire financial system. A robust regulatory modernization effort must address this imbalance. At a minimum, bank regulation should prioritize high-quality safety and soundness standards and compliance with minimal burden. Ideally, the regulatory disparity between banks and the shadow banking system should be eliminated. While some entities, particularly in private credit, are resistant to banklike regulation (especially capital standards and supervisory credit guidance), extending the regulatory umbrella to fintechs in the payment space and crypto firms would level the playing field and legitimize these activities, allowing for fairer competition with banks.

Bank “regulation” itself — that is, the written rules and regulations implementing statutes passed by Congress — is the tip of the problematic iceberg. Equally significant for banks and the economy is the government agency-directed supervisory system. This system, initially designed to ensure banks complied with written regulations, has evolved into an agency-directed overlay where supervisors exercise broad authority to interpret safety and soundness and compliance rules, directing banks’ operations in ways they think best. Of late, this system has too often become an inconsistent, highly intrusive and, in many cases, undisciplined drag on the industry, adding less value than it could.

Now I am somebody who respects bank regulators. Throughout my career, as a banker, bank advisor, and regulator, I have worked closely with hundreds of dedicated examiners and supervisors who work extremely hard to ensure a safer financial system. They are typically highly knowledgeable about banking and genuinely care about the well-being of the banks they supervise and the safety and soundness of the economy. However, what once was a relatively simple and straightforward examination of a bank’s financial condition and customer treatment has morphed into a system where, too often, bank examiners are so prescriptive that they are substituting their judgment for that of bank boards and management.

As if this picture were not worrisome enough, examiner comments — often useful and well-intended — have become “matters requiring attention,” or MRAs, and “matters requiring immediate attention,” or MRIAs, which, in practice, are akin to mini-enforcement actions that can escalate to even more onerous private and/or public enforcement actions if not addressed quickly enough. Turning what was once a more collaborative, consultative process into something that, too often, has the whiff of a star chamber proceeding adds complication and confrontation, degrading the supervisory process.

Compounding these challenges, thesupervisory system itself has become inconsistent — both between bank regulators and even within the same regulatory agency. Many of us have, too often, witnessed significant differences in how different agencies view the same bank and its processes. Worse, we have lived through changes in “lead examiners” or national “horizontal” examination teams, bringing views that diverge sharply from those previously conveyed to the bank.

Furthermore, banks have no real rights of appeal when it comes to supervisory decisions. In fact, arguing with a supervisory position can lead to being labeled as uncooperative and result in implicit or explicit repercussions. This fear of supervisory repercussions can discourage banks from raising legitimate concerns, however politely.

While a detailed regulatory code covering every possible bank activity is neither feasible nor desirable, ensuring consistent interpretation of existing regulations is essential. Regulatory agencies can accomplish this by adopting practices similar to those of the judicial system, focusing on publicly available interpretations of decisions and prioritizing consistency in decision-making when interpreting statutes.

Establishing a mechanism — whether an “ombudsman” or something similar — that guarantees and encourages formal and informal appeals from banks and the public alike would improve both government effectiveness and economic vitality.

Modernizing bank oversight is not a “nice to have” but a “must have” for the well-being of our financial system. A failure to address these issues with care and vigor will result in a declining banking system and another financial crisis.

WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -A U.S. judge said on Monday she hoped to rule within 24 hours in a lawsuit that aims to protect information systems at major government agencies from Elon Musk’s DOGE team, which President Donald Trump has tasked with overhauling the government.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., heard arguments on Monday, the Presidents Day holiday when federal courts are closed, to consider an emergency request by 13 Democratic state attorneys general seeking to block Musk and DOGE from accessing government systems and firing employees at seven agencies.

The states argued their ability to carry out educational and other programs were at risk. They accused Musk’s team of using data gleaned from agency systems to dismantle initiatives and direct mass firings.

“The things I’m hearing are troubling indeed, but I have to have a record and findings of fact before I issue something,” Chutkan said. She expressed doubt that the states had met the legal standard for imminent harm required for a temporary restraining order, or TRO.

“It’s kind of a like a prophylactic TRO and that’s not allowed,” she said of the states’ request. She said if the states eventually prevailed, she could order programs to be restored.

The state attorneys general that brought the case want to bar Musk’s DOGE, or Department of Government Efficiency, team from accessing information systems at the departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Commerce, and the Office of Personnel Management.

DOGE has swept through federal agencies slashing thousands of jobs and dismantling federal programs since Trump became president last month and put Musk in charge of rooting out wasteful spending as part of Trump’s dramatic overhaul of government.

The attorneys general also asked the judge to prevent Musk and DOGE team members from firing government employees or putting them on leave.

A government attorney told Chutkan he had not been able to confirm mass government layoffs took place on Friday.

“The firing of thousands of federal employees is not a small or common thing. You haven’t been able to confirm that?” she asked. The DOJ attorney said he would update the court with a letter by the end of Monday.

The states argue that Musk wields the kind of power that can only be exercised by an officer of the government who has been nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The states also allege DOGE has not been authorized by Congress.

Around 20 lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts challenging Musk’s authority, which have led to differing results.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas in New York extended a temporary block on DOGE on Friday that prevented Musk’s team from accessing Treasury systems responsible for trillions of dollars of payments.

But also on Friday, U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington declined a request by unions and nonprofits to temporarily block Musk’s team from accessing records at the departments of Labor, and Health and Human Services, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Most of the judges handling DOGE cases have not yet issued rulings.

(Reuters) – Prominent former U.S. Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein was arrested and detained on Monday after a judge in Maryland said he violated the terms of his pretrial release on previous tax-related charges tied to his high-stakes poker playing.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Sullivan said Goldstein posed a flight risk and could not be trusted to remain free after prosecutors said he transferred millions of dollars in cryptocurrency assets using accounts he concealed from the court.

Sullivan ordered Goldstein, publisher of the SCOTUSblog news website, to remain in federal custody as he fights the tax charges leveled against him last month.

Defense attorneys who previously appeared for Goldstein, John Lauro and Christopher Kise, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Sullivan in a separate order on Monday said Goldstein may represent himself in the case, after he told the court he could not afford to pay for counsel.

Goldstein, who argued more than 40 Supreme Court cases before retiring from legal practice in 2023, was indicted last month on 22 counts of tax evasion and other tax crimes allegedly connected to his side career as a poker player.

The indictment said Goldstein won and lost millions of dollars in individual poker matches and made improper payments through his law firm to cover debts. He pleaded not guilty on Jan. 27 and was granted pretrial release.

Maryland federal prosecutors in their new arrest warrant on Monday alleged Goldstein received more than $8 million in cryptocurrency and sent more than $6 million in cryptocurrency over the last five days. He was obligated to disclose all of his financial accounts to the court, prosecutors said.

Goldstein’s receipt and transfer of millions of dollars to other wallets “strongly suggests he is preparing to offshore his assets and flee,” prosecutors said.

They also alleged that Goldstein tried to stop a potential witness who knew about his personal and law firm finances from cooperating with the investigation by “[offering] things of value, including cryptocurrency.”

The earlier indictment against Goldstein said he borrowed millions of dollars to stake poker matches, underreported his gambling winnings, and used funds from his law firm, then known as Goldstein & Russell, to pay off his debts.

Goldman Sachs ends IPO diversity policy citing legal developments

(Reuters) -Goldman Sachs cancelled a four-year-old policy to only take public companies that had two diverse board members, a spokesperson for the bank said on Tuesday, in the latest such move by corporations expecting greater scrutiny on social policies from U.S. President Donald Trump.

“As a result of legal developments related to board diversity requirements, we ended our formal board diversity policy,” Goldman Sachs spokesperson Tony Fratto said.

“We continue to believe that successful boards benefit from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and we will encourage them to take this approach,” Fratto added.

Since taking office on Jan. 20, Trump has issued a series of executive orders aimed at dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs in the federal government and the private sector.

Goldman is a heavyweight in equity capital markets, the part of investment banking that starts selling shares in previously private companies to the public, a traditional way to unlock new funding for growing businesses.

Another rule that had tried to impose board diversity at that point in a company’s life was removed in December, when a conservative-majority court ruled against a Nasdaq exchange requirement that companies have at least one woman, racial minority or LGBTQ person on their board or explain why they did not.

Goldman’s DEI policy had existed since 2020, when it announced that it would only take public a company in the United States or Western Europe if at least one of its board directors counted as diverse, usually understood as being from a demographic historically under-represented in corporate America.

In 2021 it raised this to two diverse board members, one of whom had to be a woman.

The move toward boardroom diversity was slowing in the United States before Trump took power, as a conservative backlash against DEI policies in the workplace sapped enthusiasm that mounted after the killing of George Floyd in 2020.

Several large firms had made marginal progress increasing the representation of women in management even while policies to do so were in place, a Reuters review of disclosures found.

SEC and Binance Request 60-Day Pause in Legal Case Amid Regulatory Review

(Syndicate) Binance SEC US Crypto Regulations The SEC and Binance jointly request a 60-day pause in legal proceedings as the newly formed Crypto Task Force shapes digital asset policies. Last updated: February 11, 2025 10:36 EST Author Jimmy Aki Jimmy Aki Author Categories About Author

Jimmy has nearly 10 years of experience as a journalist and writer in the blockchain industry. He has worked with well-known publications such as Bitcoin Magazine, CCN, and Blockonomi, covering news…

Author Profile Share Copied Last updated: February 11, 2025 10:36 EST Why Trust Cryptonews Cryptonews has covered the cryptocurrency industry topics since 2017, aiming to provide informative insights to our readers. Our journalists and analysts have extensive experience in market analysis and blockchain technologies. We strive to maintain high editorial standards, focusing on factual accuracy and balanced reporting across all areas – from cryptocurrencies and blockchain projects to industry events, products, and technological developments. Our ongoing presence in the industry reflects our commitment to delivering relevant information in the evolving world of digital assets. Read more about Cryptonews

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Binance filed a joint motion on February 10, 2025, to pause their legal proceedings for 60 days.

This is the first time a crypto-related lawsuit has been temporarily halted since Mark Uyeda became the acting SEC chair.

Binance Legal Proceedings on Hold Due to SEC’s Crypto Task Force

The “60-Day Pause” motion was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with both parties citing the SEC’s recently established crypto task force as a key factor in their decision.

According to the filing, the task force’s work “may impact and facilitate the potential resolution of this case,” necessitating a temporary halt in legal actions.

During this period, no new filings or legal motions will take place.

At the end of the 60-day timeframe, Binance and the SEC will submit a joint status report to determine whether the case should continue or if an extension of the pause is warranted.

Notably, Binance has acknowledged the move and values Acting Chair Uyeda’s efforts to address digital asset regulations. It is committed to resolving the case while maintaining compliance as a secure and licensed exchange.

This decision follows the SEC’s announcement on January 21 about forming a Crypto Task Force led by Commissioner Hester Peirce, a popular advocate for crypto-friendly regulations.

The task force plans to shift the SEC’s stance from an enforcement-heavy approach to proactive policymaking, focusing on providing regulatory clarity.

Background on SEC’s Lawsuit Against Binance And Implications for Broader Crypto Regulations

The SEC’s legal battle with Binance began on June 5, 2023, when the regulator sued Binance, its U.S. affiliate Binance.US, and founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) for allegedly violating U.S. securities laws.

The lawsuit accused Binance of operating as an unregistered securities exchange, misleading investors about trading controls, and misusing customer funds.

Additionally, Binance was sued for promoting unregistered securities, including its native token, Binance Coin (BNB), and other cryptocurrencies like Solana (SOL) and Cardano (ADA).

However, a federal judge dismissed the SEC’s argument that BNB sales to retail investors constituted securities in June 2024.

Binance has continued to fight the allegations, despite CZ serving a term in prison last year.

Binance’s legal pause aligns with the SEC’s ongoing enforcement actions against other crypto firms.

Coinbase, for instance, faces similar charges related to the unregistered sale of securities through its staking program.

Meanwhile, Ripple remains embroiled in its lengthy legal battle over the classification of XRP.

The case is now advancing to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit after the SEC appealed a 2023 ruling.

Fox Business journalist Eleanor Terrett speculates that procedural pauses may also occur in non-fraud-related crypto cases involving entities such as Ripple, Coinbase, and Kraken as regulatory shifts take effect.

Last week, the SEC’s Crypto Task Force launched an official webpage to clarify how securities laws apply to digital assets.

The task force is working to introduce practical policy measures that foster innovation while ensuring investor protection.

It also plans to collaborate with SEC staff and engage with the public to shape new crypto regulations.

As the 60-day pause unfolds, market observers will watch closely to see whether these regulatory shifts signal a more constructive approach to crypto oversight.

The outcome of Binance’s case could influence how the SEC and other agencies move forward in balancing innovation with investor protection.

Follow us on Google News Trending News

How Tether Co-Founder William Quigley Views Crypto Regulations in Trump’s Second TermTrump Appoints PayPal Veteran David Sacks as ‘White House AI and Crypto Czar’SEC Likely to Acknowledge XRP and Dogecoin ETF Applications This Week: AnalystCrypto Prices Dip as Trump’s Metal Trade Tariffs Weigh on MarketsJapan’s SBI Posts Record Crypto Profits, Aims for Nation’s First USDC Listing

Ethereum News Ethereum Short Positions Hit Record High as Hedge Funds Bet Against ETH 2025-02-10 09:15:30, by Ruholamin Haqshanas Bitcoin News UK Landfill Tied to Lost 8,000 Bitcoin Hard Drive Set to Close: Report 2025-02-10 07:49:42, by Ruholamin Haqshanas Altcoin News Another Celeb Coin Goes Live: Bhad Bhabie Launches $BHAD to ‘Fund Cancer Research’ 2025-02-10 16:11:55, by Sead Fadilpašić Altcoin News Grayscale Files for Spot Cardano ETF, First ADA-Based Investment Vehicle 2025-02-11 05:56:38, by Sujha Sundararajan Price Analysis Price Breakthrough Forecast: The Next XRP Rally Could Be Here Soon 2025-02-09 14:21:48, by Arslan Butt

Vance tells Europeans that heavy regulation could kill AI

PARIS (Reuters) -U.S. Vice President JD Vance told Europeans on Tuesday their “massive” regulations on artificial intelligence could strangle the technology, and rejected content moderation as “authoritarian censorship”.

In another sign of divergence on AI governance, the United States and Britain did not sign up to the final statement of a French-hosted AI summit that said AI should be inclusive, open, ethical and safe.

The mood on AI has shifted as the technology takes root, from one of concerns around safety to geopolitical competition, as countries jockey to nurture the next big AI giant.

Setting out the Trump administration’s America First agenda, Vance said the United States intended to remain the dominant force in AI and strongly opposed the European Union’s far tougher regulatory approach.

“We believe that excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry,” Vance told the summit of CEOs and heads of state in Paris.

“We feel very strongly that AI must remain free from ideological bias and that American AI will not be co-opted into a tool for authoritarian censorship.”

Vance criticised the “massive regulations” created by the EU’s Digital Services Act, as well as Europe’s online privacy rules, known by the acronym GDPR, which he said meant endless legal compliance costs for smaller firms.

“Of course, we want to ensure the internet is a safe place, but it is one thing to prevent a predator from preying on a child on the internet, and it is something quite different to prevent a grown man or woman from accessing an opinion that the government thinks is misinformation,” he said.

European lawmakers last year approved the bloc’s AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive set of rules governing the technology.

Vance is leading the American delegation at the Paris summit. He left just after his speech, without listening to European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, who spoke right after him, or French President Emmanuel Macron, who gave the closing speech. He later met separately with each, for talks.

CHINA WARNING

In his speech, Vance also appeared to take aim at China at a delicate moment for the U.S. technology sector.

Last month, Chinese startup DeepSeek freely distributed a powerful AI reasoning model that some said challenged U.S. technology leadership. It sent shares of American chip designer Nvidia down 17%.

“From CCTV to 5G equipment, we’re all familiar with cheap tech in the marketplace that’s been heavily subsidised and exported by authoritarian regimes,” Vance said.

But “partnering with them means chaining your nation to an authoritarian master that seeks to infiltrate, dig in and seize your information infrastructure,” he added.

Vance did not mention DeepSeek by name. There has been no evidence that information could surreptitiously flow through the startup’s technology to China’s government, and the underlying code is freely available to use and view. However, some government organisations have reportedly banned DeepSeek’s use.

EU TO CUT RED TAPE

Macron told the summit he was in favour of trimming red tape, but stressed that regulation was needed to ensure trust in AI, or people would end up rejecting it. “We need a trustworthy AI,” he said.

Von der Leyen also said the EU would reduce bureaucracy and invest more in AI.

The United States and Britain did not immediately explain why they had not signed the AI Summit’s declaration, as shown by a published text, while at least 60 countries including China had done so.

Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing told the summit that China was willing to work with other countries to safeguard security and share achievements in the field of artificial intelligence to build “a community with a shared future for mankind”.

A source close to organisers said they were not surprised that the United States had not signed, considering their stance on regulation.

A British government source cited concerns about some of the language which Britain could not get changed, and said the approach agreed at the Paris summit was “pretty different” to the first AI Safety summit, which was hosted by Britain in 2023.

“Clearly from JD Vance’s speech, the U.S. policy has an unequivocal shift now,” said Russell Wald, executive director at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.

“Safety is not going to be the primary focus but instead it’s going to be accelerated innovation and the belief that the technology is an opportunity, and safety equals regulation, regulation equals losing that opportunity.”

Dario Amodei, chief executive of the OpenAI competitor Anthropic, which has aimed to distinguish its work as more safety-focused, said the summit represented a “missed opportunity” to address supply chain controls, AI’s security risks and expected labour market disruption.