Regulation

In this second installment of a two-part series, David Dubrow and Kent Hiteshew propose reforms to improve disclosure standards in the municipal bond market, exploring both legislative and regulatory approaches. They outline eight key guidelines for enhancing transparency and consistency in municipal offering statements, aiming to bring these disclosures into the modern era and better protect investors.

Two municipal market veterans, David Dubrow and Kent Hiteshew, delve into the history and current state of disclosure practices in the municipal bond market, highlighting the flaws in the current system. In a follow up, the authors will explore potential paths to reform and key components of a uniform standard of disclosure for municipal securities.

The financial market has moved from LIBOR to alternative interest-rate benchmarks, such as SOFR. Credit-sensitive rates, which are now becoming increasingly popular, carry greater risks than SOFR and other “risk-free rates” and must be used with great care. If not, United States legislators might need to step in to further stimulate the use of safter benchmark alternatives, writes Randy Priem.

Should we pay regulators according to their performance? In a new paper, Jason Chen, Jakub Hajda, and Joseph Kalmenovitz show that a pay-for-performance system has a surprising effect: it increases regulatory effort but also motivates regulators, especially the productive ones, to quit and join the private sector.

Johannes Fritz and Tommaso Giardini examine the state of AI rulemaking around the world and find that, despite global alignment on principles, execution at the national level diverges on three important metrics. The risk is fragmentation in AI as firms choose to exclude entire markets rather than navigate the intricacies of compliance in different regions.

Dylan Gyauch-Lewis reviews the Supreme Court’s recent spate of rulings redefining administrative law and how they threaten the National Labor Relations Board’s authority.

James Tierney finds that Loper Bright, the latest ruling in a rash of Supreme Court cases undermining the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority, will limit the agency’s intervention in the market and produce uncertainty for businesses as they guess which rules will survive the judicial review.

Douglas Ross writes that for most of its history, the Federal Trade Commission did not rely on the Chevron doctrine to enforce its mandate to prohibit “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Thus, Loper Bright will not significantly alter the FTC’s historical role in regulating competition. However, the Chevron doctrine could have been a useful ally to the current FTC, which under Chair Lina Khan has pursued more ambitious rulemaking, such as to ban noncompete clauses. Without the Chevron doctrine, the FTC will face a more arduous path to defending its new rules as they are challenged in the courts.

Sharon Block writes that after Loper Bright, there remain many questions about how the courts will treat the discretionary rulemaking authority of the National Labor Relations Board to protect workers’ right to choose to join unions and act collectively. While precedent suggests the NLRB could retain most of its power to issue and enforce rules, the recent history of a Supreme Court that has shown little favor toward workers or government intervention suggests a narrower reading of the NLRB’s authority may be coming.

Blaine Saito writes that the end to the Chevron deference doctrine could lead to a return to the National Muffler standard that grants judicial deference to long-standing agency rules and rules promulgated contemporaneously with Congressional statute. This may mean that the courts overturn newer taxation rules, though the Internal Revenue Code provides explicit discretionary rulemaking power to the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, which should further limit Loper Bright’s impact on the agency.