CUNA, merchants, Fed offer oral interchange arguments

first_imgOral arguments began on Friday as the Credit Union National Association and financial services partners, the Federal Reserve, and merchants present their views before U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Judges David Tatel, Harry Edwards and Stephen Williams.CUNA’s partners are the American Bankers Association, Clearinghouse Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Electronic Payments Coalition, Financial Services Roundtable, Independent Community Bankers of America, Midsize Bank Coalition of America, National Association of Federal Credit Unions, and National Bankers Association. The case is known as NACS, et al. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.Merchants brought the case against the Fed in 2012, alleging that the Fed made errors in implementing a Dodd-Frank-imposed debit interchange fee cap. The Fed’s final rule caps debit interchange fees for issuers with assets of $10 billion or more at 21 cents. The regulation also allows card issuers to charge an additional five basis points of the value of the transaction to cover fraud losses. An extra penny may also be charged by financial institutions that are in compliance with the Fed’s fraud-prevention standards.Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in July moved to strike down the Fed’s interchange fee caps, but later issued a stay to keep the Fed rules in place during the court proceedings. continue reading » ShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblrlast_img read more

DJ wrong to recuse himself on barrister’s fees

first_imgA district judge assessing a barrister’s fees did not need to recuse himself simply because that barrister had been appointed to the bench, the High Court has ruled.Mr Justice Waksman ruled in Akers & Ors v Kirkland Ltd & Ors there was no reason for District Judge Jenkinson to decide he was not in a position to assess the fees. A link to the case can be found here.The DJ and regional costs judge was required to assess the £1.7m claimant costs following the settlement of 37 claims in relation to a crane collapsing onto a block of flats in Liverpool in 2009.Included in the costs were £103,000 fees attributed to claimant counsel Shirley Hennessy, who had since been appointed as a full time district judge by the time of the costs assessment.DJ Jenkinson had said he was ‘not comfortable at all’ dealing with Hennessy’s fees, and the claimants made an application for him to recuse himself completely.The court heard that with DJ Jenkinson sitting at Liverpool County Court and DJ Hennessy at Birkenhead, there was a ‘degree of professional and… social interaction’ between them, including occasionally meeting at social events where judges were invited.DJ Jenkinson opted to partially recuse himself based on a ‘real possibility a fair minded observer may take the view there was a potential for bias’ and it might be felt a judge might approach a colleague’s fees ‘generously’.Hearing an appeal from the claimants, who wanted a full recusal, and defendants cross-appealing to contest any recusal, Waksman J found no basis for saying the handling of the costs assessment would be ‘tainted by apparent bias’.The judge said: ‘There was in fact, no cases for the district judge to have recused himself even at all, even to the extent of the assessment of counsel’s fees.‘This was a case, in truth, of no more than some judicial discomfort, but which falls well short of establishing apparent bias.’He added that there had to be a ‘sense of proportion’ that counsel fees amounted to just 7% of the total claimed.The judge was also critical of the claimant solicitors for having sought the opinion of a retired district judge when applying for DJ Jenkinson’s recusal. In his recusal judgment, DJ Jenkinson described this as ‘unprofessional’, and Waksman J said he was entitled to make such an assessment.The High Court judge added: ‘Experienced solicitors should know better than to attempt to support an application of this kind by seeking the opinion of a retired judge, as if that could or should somehow influence the judge who is the subject of the recusal application.’last_img read more

US tests missile-defense system over Pacific Ocean

first_img Related U.S. Department of Defense(KODIAK, Alaska) — The U.S. conducted a successful test of a missile-defense system over the Pacific Ocean, military officials announced Sunday morning.The test was planned prior to North Korea’s test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile on Friday.The Air Force launched a medium-range ballistic missile over the Pacific that was “detected, tracked and intercepted” by the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system located at a complex in Kodiak, Alaska, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said in a statement.“In addition to successfully intercepting the target, the data collected will allow [the Missile Defense Agency] to enhance the THAAD weapon system, our modeling and simulation capabilities, and our ability to stay ahead of the evolving threat,” said the agency’s director, Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves.As part of the test, “soldiers from the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade conducted launcher, fire-control and radar operations using the same procedures they would use in an actual combat scenario,” the statement said. Soldiers operating the equipment were not aware of the actual target launch time.This was the 15th successful intercept in 15 tests for the THAAD weapon system, the agency said.Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.Powered by WPeMaticolast_img read more