DOCSLIB.ORG

Guardianships and Conservatorships

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guardianships and Conservatorships Guardianships and Conservatorships Cosponsored by the Elder Law Section Friday, October 6, 2017 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m. 4.25 General CLE or Practical Skills credits, 1 Ethics credit, and 1 Elder Abuse Reporting credit GUARDIANSHIPS AND CONSERVATORSHIPS SECTION PLANNERS Kay Hyde Patton, Chair, Leahy Van Vactor Cox & Melendy LLP, Springfield Penny Davis, Davis Pagnano McNeil & Vigna LLP, Portland Denise Gorrell, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP, Portland Rebecca Kueny, The Pixton Law Group, Lake Oswego Jennifer Kwon, Kwon Law LLC, Portland S. Jane Patterson, Attorney at Law, Gresham Julie Meyer Rowett, Yazzolino & Rowett LLP, Portland Mark M. Williams, Gaydos Churnside & Balthrop PC, Eugene OREGON STATE BAR ELDER LAW SECTION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Monica D. Pacheco, Chair Jan Elana Friedman, Chair-Elect Kay Hyde-Patton, Past Chair Darin J. Dooley, Treasurer Theressa Hollis, Secretary Kathryn M. Belcher Jason C. Broesder Don Blair Dickman Erin M. Evers Denise Nicole Gorrell Jennifer H. Kwon Anastasia Yu Meisner J. Thomas Pixton Michael A. Schmidt Whitney D. Yazzolino The materials and forms in this manual are published by the Oregon State Bar exclusively for the use of attorneys. Neither the Oregon State Bar nor the contributors make either express or implied warranties in regard to the use of the materials and/or forms. Each attorney must depend on his or her own knowledge of the law and expertise in the use or modification of these materials. Copyright © 2017 OREGON STATE BAR 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road P.O. Box 231935 Tigard, OR 97281-1935 Guardianships and Conservatorships ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Schedule . v Faculty . vii 1. Guardianship for Adults and Alternatives . 1–i — Tim McNeil, Davis Pagnano McNeil & Vigna LLP, Portland, Oregon 2. Conservatorships . 2–i — Julie Meyer Rowett, Yazzolino & Rowett LLP, Portland, Oregon 3. Advising Lay Fiduciaries—Presentation Slides. 3–i — Leathan Teal, Educational Manager, Guardian Partners, Portland, Oregon 4A. UTCR 5.100 Continuing Confusion—Presentation Slides . 4A–i — The Honorable Paula Bechtold, Coos County Circuit Court, Coos Bay, Oregon 4B. Establishing Guardianships and Conservatorships; Contested Proceedings; Accounting Tips from the Court . 4B–i — The Honorable Claudia Burton, Marion County Circuit Court, Salem, Oregon 5. Ethics Issues in Contested Cases . 5–i — Lisa Bertalan, Hendrix Brinich & Bertalan LLP, Bend, Oregon — Denise Gorrell, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP, Portland, Oregon — Stephen Owen, Attorney at Law, Portland, Oregon 6. Oregon Elder Abuse Reporting Requirements . 6–i — Mark Johnson Roberts, Oregon State Bar, Tigard, Oregon 7. Resources on Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Options . 7–i — Penny L. Davis, Davis Pagnano McNeil & Vigna LLP, Portland, Oregon Guardianships and Conservatorships iii Guardianships and Conservatorships iv SCHEDULE 7:30 Registration 8:30 Welcome—The Future of Protective Proceedings Michael Levelle, 2017 Oregon State Bar President 8:45 Guardianship for Adults and the Alternatives F Assessing the need for guardianship F Procedure and pleadings F Emergency proceedings F Guardian’s powers and duties Tim McNeil, Davis Pagnano McNeil & Vigna LLP, Portland 9:45 Conservatorships F Procedure and pleadings F Conservatorships for minors F Managing the estate F Accountings Julie Meyer Rowett, Yazzolino & Rowett LLP, Portland 10:45 Break 11:00 Advising Lay Fiduciaries F Guardian Partners programs and experience F Court requirements for fiduciary education F Lay fiduciary training overview Leathan Teal, Educational Manager, Guardian Partners, Portland Mark M. Williams, Gaydos Churnside & Balthrop PC, Eugene Noon Elder Law Section Annual Meeting 12:15 Lunch 1:15 Protective Proceedings F Hearings in contested cases F Tips and traps for conservatorship accountings F Attorney fees requests The Honorable Claudia Burton, Marion County Circuit Court, Salem 2:15 Ethics Issues in Contested Cases F Identifying conflicts of interest F Representing a person with diminished capacity F Working with self-represented parties F Getting paid, ethically Lisa Bertalan, Hendrix Brinich & Bertalan LLP, Bend Denise Gorrell, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP, Portland Stephen Owen, Attorney at Law, Portland 3:15 Break Guardianships and Conservatorships v SCHEDULE (Continued) 3:30 Oregon Elder Abuse Reporting Requirements F Recognizing elder abuse F Financial exploitation and “wrongful taking” F Protecting client confidentiality Mark Johnson Roberts, Oregon State Bar, Tigard 4:30 Adjourn Guardianships and Conservatorships vi FACULTY The Honorable Claudia Burton, Marion County Circuit Court, Salem. Judge Burton became a Circuit Court Judge in January 2004. Before that, she was a hearings referee/pro tem circuit court judge, an administrative law judge, and in private practice in both California and Oregon. She is admitted to practice in Oregon, California, and Washington. Lisa Bertalan, Hendrix Brinich & Bertalan LLP, Bend. Ms. Bertalan specializes in estate and tax planning, guardianship and conservatorship law, probate and elder law. She is a past member of the Oregon State Bar Estate Planning Newsletter Editorial Board, the Oregon State Bar Elder Law Section Executive Committee, the Department of Justice Elder Abuse Task Force, and the State of Oregon Long Term Care Advisory Committee. While serving on the Elder Abuse Task Force, Ms. Bertalan drafted several bills that are now law to protect Oregon seniors from financial and physical abuse. Ms. Bertalan also served as the Municipal Judge of Bend from 1993 to 2008. Denise Gorrell, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP, Portland. Ms. Gorrell works on a wide range of litigation and guardianship administration issues, with a focus on fiduciary litigation for professional fiduciaries, individual trustees, beneficiaries, and personal representatives. Ms. Gorrell’s litigation expertise includes contested guardianship and conservatorship cases, will contests, undue influence, claims of fiduciary breach, and financial elder abuse cases. Ms. Gorrell is a regular lecturer on fiduciary litigation issues. Tim McNeil, Davis Pagnano McNeil & Vigna LLP, Portland. Mr. McNeil is a member of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and a past member of the Oregon State Bar Pro Bono Committee. He is the 2005 recipient of the Senior Law Project Volunteer of the Year Award for assisting elderly clients. He also volunteers to represent children in family court cases. Mr. McNeil is a regular presenter on elder law topics. Stephen Owen, Attorney at Law, Portland. Mr. Owen’s practice emphasizes probate, trust, and elder law litigation matters, including cases involving contested conservator and guardian proceedings. He also acts as a neutral mediator in these types of cases. Mr. Owen is a frequent speaker on guardianship, conservatorship, trust dispute, and probate law matters. Mark Johnson Roberts, Oregon State Bar, Tigard. Mr. Johnson Roberts is Deputy General Counsel to the Oregon State Bar. He provides prospective ethics advice to Oregon lawyers and counsel to the bar on regulatory, employment, and business matters. He practiced family law in Portland for 26 years before joining the bar’s staff in 2016. Mr. Johnson Roberts is chair of the American Bar Association Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, past president of the Oregon State Bar, past president of the National LGBT Bar Association, and past chair of Oregon’s State Professional Responsibility Board. He is the 2014 recipient of the Multnomah Bar Association 2014 Professionalism Award in recognition of his many years of service to the bench and bar. Mr. Johnson Roberts holds an LL.M. in International Law from the Willamette University College of Law. Julie Meyer Rowett, Yazzolino & Rowett LLP, Portland. Ms. Rowett’s expertise includes estate planning and administration, protective proceedings, special needs planning, Medicaid, and planning for long- term care. She is a member of the Oregon State Bar Estate Planning and Administration Section and Elder Law Section and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. Ms. Rowett is a frequent presenter at continuing legal education events, speaking on topics such as Medicaid, income cap trusts, and guardianships. Ms. Rowett is a long-time volunteer with the Multnomah County Senior Law Project and the Senior Milwaukie Center. She is one of the 2013 recipients of the Multnomah Bar Association Senior Law Project Volunteer of the Year. Guardianships and Conservatorships vii FACULTY (Continued) Leathan Teal, Educational Manager, Guardian Partners, Portland. Mark M. Williams, Gaydos Churnside & Balthrop PC, Eugene. Mr. Williams’s practice comprises all facets of elder law, including contested guardianships and conservatorships for individuals and working with professional fiduciaries; he also has substantial experience in estate planning matters. Mr. Williams is a member of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, the State of Oregon Continuing Care Retirement Communities Advisory Council, and the Oregon State Bar Elder Law Section and Legal Ethics Committee. He also serves as adjunct professor to the Concordia University College of Health and Social Services and an adjunct instructor and lecturer at the University of Oregon Law School. Guardianships and Conservatorships viii Chapter 1 Guardianship for Adults and Alternatives TIM MCNEIL1 Davis Pagnano McNeil & Vigna LLP Portland, Oregon Contents I. General Background—Guardianships and Less Restrictive Alternatives . 1–1 A. Protective Proceedings . 1–1 B. Civil Rights and Less Restrictive Alternatives
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intermediate Elder Law Update
    INTERMEDIATE ELDER LAW UPDATE Tuesday, November 1, 2016 New York City Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Westchester Wednesday, November 9, 2016 Buffalo/Amherst Thursday, November 10, 2016 Albany Wednesday, November 16, 2016 Long Island NYSBA Co-Sponsors: Elder Law and Special Needs Section Committee on Continuing Legal Education This program is offered for education purposes. The views and opinions of the faculty expressed during this program are those of the presenters and authors of the materials. Further, the statements made by the faculty during this program do not constitute legal advice. Copyright ©2016 All Rights Reserved New York State Bar Association Lawyer Assistance Program 1.800.255.0569 Q. What is LAP? A. The Lawyer Assistance Program is a program of the New York State Bar Association established to help attorneys, judges, and law students in New York State (NYSBA members and non-members) who are affected by alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, depression, other mental health issues, or debilitating stress. Q. What services does LAP provide? A. Services are free and include: • Early identification of impairment • Intervention and motivation to seek help • Assessment, evaluation and development of an appropriate treatment plan • Referral to community resources, self-help groups, inpatient treatment, outpatient counseling, and rehabilitation services • Referral to a trained peer assistant – attorneys who have faced their own difficulties and volunteer to assist a struggling colleague by providing support, understanding, guidance, and good listening • Information and consultation for those (family, firm, and judges) concerned about an attorney • Training programs on recognizing, preventing, and dealing with addiction, stress, depression, and other mental health issues Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination
    Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination National Council on Disability March 22, 2018 National Council on Disability (NCD) 1331 F Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20004 Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination National Council on Disability, March 22, 2018 Celebrating 30 years as an independent federal agency This report is also available in alternative formats. Please visit the National Council on Disability (NCD) website (www.ncd.gov) or contact NCD to request an alternative format using the following information: [email protected] Email 202-272-2004 Voice 202-272-2022 Fax The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration, as this and all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process. National Council on Disability An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families. Letter of Transmittal March 22, 2018 President Donald J. Trump The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: The National Council on Disability (NCD) is pleased to submit its report, Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination for People with Disabilities, which provides a comprehensive review of guardianship against the backdrop of the civil rights advancements of individuals with disabilities in the past several decades. While people with a variety of disabilities may face guardianship, the burgeoning aging population in America has forced issues surrounding guardianship to the fore in national media coverage and policy debates in recent years, making NCD’s report a timely contribution to policy discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Credit Risk Retention Rules
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Part 43 Docket No. OCC-2013-0010 RIN 1557-AD40 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 244 Docket No. R-1411 RIN 7100-AD70 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 373 RIN 3064-AD74 FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY 12 CFR Part 1234 RIN 2590-AA43 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 246 Release No. 34-73407; File No. S7-14-11 RIN 3235-AK96 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 267 RIN 2501-AD53 Credit Risk Retention AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission); Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA); and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, FDIC, Commission, FHFA, and HUD (the agencies) are adopting a joint final rule (the rule, or the final rule) to implement the credit risk retention requirements of section 15G of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15. U.S.C. 78o-11), as added by section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act or Dodd-Frank Act). Section 15G generally requires the securitizer of asset- backed securities to retain not less than 5 percent of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing the asset-backed securities. Section 15G includes a variety of exemptions from these requirements, including an exemption for asset-backed securities that are collateralized exclusively by residential mortgages that qualify as “qualified residential mortgages,” as such term is defined by the agencies by rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Conservatorship: Frequently Asked Questions
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Conservatorship: Frequently Asked Questions Updated May 31, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44525 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Conservatorship: Frequently Asked Questions Summary Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are chartered by Congress as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to provide liquidity in the mortgage market and promote homeownership for underserved groups and locations. The GSEs purchase mortgages, retain the credit risk (for a fee), and package them into mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) that they either keep as investments or sell to institutional investors. In the years following the housing and mortgage market turmoil that began around 2007, the GSEs experienced financial difficulty. By 2008, the GSEs’ financial condition had weakened, generating concerns over their ability to meet their combined obligations on $1.2 trillion in bonds and $3.7 trillion in MBSs that they had guaranteed at the time. In response, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the GSEs’ primary regulator, took control of them in a process known as conservatorship. Subject to the terms of the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs) between the U.S. Treasury and the GSEs, Treasury provided funds to keep the GSEs solvent. The GSEs initially agreed to pay Treasury a 10% cash dividend on funds received, and dividends were suspended for all other GSE stockholders. If the GSEs had enough profit at the end of the quarter, the dividend came out of the profit. When the GSEs did not have enough cash to pay their dividend to Treasury, they asked for additional cash to make the payment instead of issuing additional stock.
    [Show full text]
  • European and Best Practice Bank Resolution Mechanisms
    70152 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized EUROPEAN AND BEST PRACTICE BANK RESOLUTION MECHANISMS AN ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY AND LEGAL REFORMS Public Disclosure Authorized OVERVIEW REPORT Private & Financial Sector Development Department Public Disclosure Authorized Central Europe and the Baltics Country Department Europe and Central Asia Region The World Bank March 30, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 SECTION I: BACKGROUND 8 SECTION II: BANK RESOLUTION – KEY PRINCIPLES 10 SECTION III: THE FUTURE EU RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK 13 Intervention Triggers 15 Resolution Tools 16 Resolution Powers 18 Funding of Resolution 18 The Cross-Border Dimension 19 RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE EC PROPOSALS 20 SECTION IV: FINANCIAL MECHANISMS AND INSTRUMENTS FOR RESOLUTION 27 Mechanisms and Instruments for Implementing the Resolution Process 27 Categorization and Ranking of Bank Liabilities by Creditor 29 SECTION V: ANALYSIS OF SELECTED COUNTRIES’ RESOLUTION REGIMES 33 POLAND 33 CZECH REPUBLIC 38 GERMANY 42 SPAIN 45 UNITED KINGDOM 52 CROATIA 57 CANADA 61 UNITED STATES 66 SECTION VI: OBSERVATIONS BASED ON REVIEWS OF EU COUNTRIES’ LAWS 68 Importance of the Resolution Regime 68 Observations on Country Frameworks 71 Key Legal Provisions for Credit Institution Resolution 73 Criteria for Supervisory Intervention 73 The Objective of a Proceeding 74 The Governmental Authority Responsible for a Proceeding 75 The Powers of the Administrator of a Resolution Proceeding 75 The Mechanisms that could be used to Resolve an Institution 76 The Effect on Corporate Governance of the Affected Institution 77 CONCLUSIONS 79 This report on European Bank Resolution Mechanisms and proposals for reform, was jointly written by a team comprising John Pollner (Lead Financial Officer, ECSPF, World Bank), Henry N.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Housing Finance Agency's FY 2019 and FY 2018 Financial
    441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 November 19, 2019 The Honorable Michael Crapo Chairman The Honorable Sherrod Brown Ranking Member Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Maxine Waters Chairwoman The Honorable Patrick McHenry Ranking Member Committee on Financial Services House of Representatives Financial Audit: Federal Housing Finance Agency’s FY 2019 and FY 2018 Financial Statements This report transmits the GAO auditor’s report on the results of our audits of the fiscal years 2019 and 2018 financial statements of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which is incorporated in the enclosed Federal Housing Finance Agency Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2019. As discussed more fully in the auditor’s report that begins on page 75 of the enclosed agency performance and accountability report, we found • the FHFA financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2019, and 2018, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; • FHFA maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2019; and • no reportable noncompliance for fiscal year 2019 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements we tested. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 established FHFA as an independent agency empowered with supervisory and regulatory oversight of the housing-related government- sponsored enterprises: the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the 11 Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Office of Finance.1 This act requires FHFA to annually prepare financial statements and requires GAO to audit the agency’s financial statements.2 In accordance with the act, we have audited FHFA’s financial statements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Judicial Discretion for Disabled Individuals in the American Guardianship System
    Macalester College DigitalCommons@Macalester College Political Science Honors Projects Political Science Department 1-18-2017 Finding Autonomy: The mpI act of Judicial Discretion for Disabled Individuals in the American Guardianship System Katherine Davis [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/poli_honors Part of the Disability Law Commons, Family Law Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Davis, Katherine, "Finding Autonomy: The mpI act of Judicial Discretion for Disabled Individuals in the American Guardianship System" (2017). Political Science Honors Projects. 70. http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/poli_honors/70 This Honors Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Political Science Department at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Finding Autonomy: The Impact of Judicial Discretion for Disabled Individuals in the American Guardianship System Katherine Davis Patrick Schmidt Political Science January 18, 2017 1 Abstract This study examines the conflict between guardianship and the American disability rights movement, specifically the shift from a medical to a capability model of disability. Legal guardianship presents judges with a dilemma of favoring individual autonomy or societal protection. This dichotomy manifests in the construction of state statutes where legislators can influence judicial discretion and sway decisions. Through analysis of state statutes, case law, and interviews with judges in Connecticut and Minnesota, this study found that higher levels of discretion do not necessarily translate to increased protection of individual autonomy or the use of alternatives to guardianship.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lack of Resolution
    Emory Law Journal Volume 60 Issue 1 2010 A Lack of Resolution David Zaring Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj Recommended Citation David Zaring, A Lack of Resolution, 60 Emory L. J. 97 (2010). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol60/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory Law Journal by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ZARING GALLEYSFINAL 10/5/2010 11:42 AM A LACK OF RESOLUTION David Zaring* [T]here is a clear need for a new “resolution authority.” —Paul A. Volcker1 How few there are who have courage enough to own their Faults, or resolution enough to mend them! 2 —Benjamin Franklin ABSTRACT The failure to resolve—that is, impose a quick death penalty on—enormous financial intermediaries such as Lehman Brothers and AIG damaged the ability of the government to respond to the financial crisis. But expanding resolution authority to cover new systemically significant institutions—which is one of the lynchpins of financial regulatory reform—poses a problem of legitimacy with constitutional implications, as resolution authority is usually exercised with almost no predeprivation process and little postdeprivation compensation. At the same time, banking regulators have failed, every time they have been given more resolution authority, to exercise that authority when it is needed. This Article reassesses resolution authority. It proposes (1) domestic solutions to protect against government overreach and (2) an international context to deal with the problem of underreach.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 133/Friday, July 10, 2020/Proposed
    41716 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 133 / Friday, July 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL transition away from the Temporary Steven Wrone, Senior Counsels, Office PROTECTION GSE QM loan definition and to ensure of Regulations, at 202–435–7700. If you access to responsible, affordable require this document in an alternative 12 CFR Part 1026 mortgage credit upon its expiration. electronic format, please contact CFPB_ [Docket No. CFPB–2020–0020] DATES: Comments must be received on [email protected]. or before September 8, 2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RIN 3170–AA98 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, I. Summary of the Proposed Rule Qualified Mortgage Definition Under identified by Docket No. CFPB–2020– 0020 or RIN 3170–AA98, by any of the The Ability-to-Repay/Qualified the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule or Rule) Z): General QM Loan Definition following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: requires a creditor to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Protection. instructions for submitting comments. consumer’s ability to repay a residential • Email: 2020-NPRM-ATRQM- mortgage loan according to its terms. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for Loans that meet the Rule’s requirements public comment. [email protected]. Include Docket No. CFPB–2020–0020 or RIN 3170– for qualified mortgages (QMs) obtain SUMMARY: With certain exceptions, AA98 in the subject line of the message. certain protections from liability. The Regulation Z requires creditors to make • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Rule defines several categories of QMs. One QM category defined in the Rule a reasonable, good faith determination Comment Intake—General QM is the General QM loan category.
    [Show full text]
  • Investors and Shareholders June 2014
    Investors and Shareholders June 2014 Ariadne Capital has secured the financial support and commitment of 62 of the world’s leading entrepreneurs and business builders. Each of them have been part of building a ‘growth story’ for the part of the world that they call home by building extraordinary businesses which help people live more fulfilling lives. We are very proud to call them our “Founding Investors”. Julie Meyer, Chief Executive Officer, Ariadne Capital Ltd 2 Ariadne Investors Mike Alfant - Page 4 Dimitris Livanas - Page 27 Michele Appendino - Page 5 Wayne Lochner - Page 28 Dr Jalal Bagherli - Page 6 Julie Meyer - Page 29 Francois Barrault - Page 7 Bob Morton - Page 30 Paul Barry-Walsh - Page 8 John O’Connell - Page 31 Sabeer Bhatia - Page 9 Nick Ogden - Page 32 Andrew Black - Page 9 Yogesh Patel - Page 32 Mark Blandford - Page 10 Markus Pedriks - Page 33 Dr Nigel Burton - Page 11 Judy Piatkus - Page 34 Jeremy Coller - Page 12 Ian Powell - Page 35 Ian Cormack - Page 13 Al-Noor Ramji - Page 35 Peter Cunningham - Page 14 Senia Rapisarda - Page 36 Paul Danowa - Page 15 John Redford - Page 37 Susan Dark - Page 16 Stefan Roever - Page 37 Mark Duesenberg - Page 17 David Rowe - Page 38 Rebecca Duesenberg - Page 17 Christopher Samuelson - Page 38 Wilf Eaton - Page 18 Lynda Scott-Tomlin - Page 39 Jo Goodson - Page 19 Roman Stanek - Page 40 Francis Goodwin - Page 20 Glenda Stone - Page 41 Toon den Heijer - Page 21 Robert Swann - Page 42 Stephen Harlow - Page 22 Alan Turner - Page 42 Finn Helmer - Page 22 Paul Turner - Page 43 Gerhard Huber - Page 23 Martin Velasco - Page 44 Michael Jackson - Page 23 Peter Wakeham - Page 45 Michael Janssen - Page 24 Steve Watmough - Page 46 Candace Johnson - Page 25 Ed Wray - Page 47 Vinay Kantak - Page 26 Michele Appendino - Page 48 Benoit Leleux - Page 26 Ariadne Investor Members - Page 49 Mike Alfant Mike Alfant founded Fusion Systems Shanghai Co, Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Appointment of Receiver -- Review of Actions. (1) Upon
    Utah Code 7-2-9 Conservatorship, receivership, or liquidation of institution -- Appointment of receiver -- Review of actions. (1) Upon taking possession of the institution, the commissioner may appoint a receiver to perform the duties of the commissioner. Subject to any limitations, conditions, or requirements specified by the commissioner and approved by the court, a receiver shall have all the powers and duties of the commissioner under this chapter and the laws of this state to act as a conservator, receiver, or liquidator of the institution. Actions of the commissioner in appointing a receiver shall be subject to review only as provided in Section 7-2-2. (2) (a) If the deposits of the institution are to any extent insured by a federal deposit insurance agency, the commissioner may appoint that agency as receiver. After receiving notice in writing of the acceptance of the appointment, the commissioner shall file a certificate of appointment in the commissioner's office and with the clerk of the district court. After the filing of the certificate, the possession of all assets, business, and property of the institution is considered transferred from the institution and the commissioner to the agency, and title to all assets, business, and property of the institution is vested in the agency without the execution of any instruments of conveyance, assignment, transfer, or endorsement. (b) If a federal deposit insurance agency accepts an appointment as receiver, it has all the powers and privileges provided by the laws of this state and the United States with respect to the conservatorship, receivership, or liquidation of an institution and the rights of its depositors, and other creditors, including authority to make an agreement for the purchase of assets and assumption of deposit and other liabilities by another depository institution or take other action authorized by Title 12 of the United States Code to maintain the stability of the banking system.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-15-299, Financial Company Bankruptcies
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees March 2015 FINANCIAL COMPANY BANKRUPTCIES Information on Legislative Proposals and International Coordination GAO-15-299 March 2015 FINANCIAL COMPANY BANKRUPTCIES Information on Legislative Proposals and International Coordination Highlights of GAO-15-299, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The challenges associated with the The U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Code) chapters dealing with the liquidation or bankruptcies of large financial reorganization of a financial company have not been changed since GAO last companies during the 2007-2009 reported on financial company bankruptcies in July 2013. However, bills financial crisis raised questions about introduced in the previous Congress would, if re-introduced and passed, make the effectiveness of the U.S. broad changes to the Code relevant to financial company bankruptcies. The Bankruptcy Code and international Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014 (H.R. 5421) and Taxpayer Protection coordination for resolving complex and Responsible Resolution Act (S.1861) would have expanded to varying financial institutions with cross-border degrees the powers of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System activities. (Federal Reserve) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and would have imposed a temporary stay on financial derivatives (securities whose value The Dodd-Frank Act mandates that is based on one or more underlying assets) that are exempt from the automatic GAO report on an ongoing basis on stay under the Code. That stay would prohibit a creditor from seizing or taking ways to make the U.S. Bankruptcy other action to collect what the creditor is owed under the financial derivative.
    [Show full text]