- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Video: I think she is annoyed with us
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

I think she is annoyed with us video: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4ItSnguYcu/?igsh=MXVpemtzdDF6NGtlZA==

1 0

Women Need Extra 19 Years In Work To Close Pension Gap
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

Subject: Women Need Extra 19 Years In Work To Close Pension Gap Women Need Extra 19 Years In Work To Close Pension Gap <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1795041?nl_pk=a94fc…> By Joel Poultney Women in the U.K. would need to work for an additional 19 years on average to retire with the same amount of pension savings as a man, according to research published on Wednesday. Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1795041?nl_pk=a94fc…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1795041?nl_pk=a94fc…>

1 2

Underwriters Freed From Suit Against Fintech Co. Ryvyl
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

Underwriters Freed From Suit Against Fintech Co. Ryvyl <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1809594?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…> By Katryna Perera A California federal judge has dismissed the underwriters and significantly trimmed the remaining claims in a case against fintech company Ryvyl Inc. and certain executives, accusing them of concealing accounting issues, saying the plaintiffs have adequately alleged only a few misleading statements and knowledge of wrongdoing by one executive. Order attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1809594?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1809594?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…>

1 0

Reporter Blasts NFL For Ignoring Discrimination Suit Claims
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

Reporter Blasts NFL For Ignoring Discrimination Suit Claims <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1809067?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By David Steele The NFL's reasoning in moving to dismiss reporter Jim Trotter's discrimination and retaliation lawsuit "is way off the mark," and the motion itself "is more notable for what it ignores than what it states,'' Trotter said in a scathing opposition memorandum filed in New York federal court. Memorandum attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1809067?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1809067?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

USPTO Can't See Snapchat 'Spectacles' IP Win Ahead Of Trial
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

USPTO Can't See Snapchat 'Spectacles' IP Win Ahead Of Trial <https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/1809803?nl_pk=2bd720dd-746c-4744…> By Dorothy Atkins A California federal magistrate judge rejected Monday the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's bid for a summary judgment win in a lawsuit by Snapchat's parent company seeking to secure trademark rights to the word "Spectacles" for its flagship virtual-reality product, sending the intellectual property dispute to a March 12 bench trial. Report attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/1809803?nl_pk=2bd720dd-746c-4744…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/1809803?nl_pk=2bd720dd-746c-4744…>

1 0

Supreme Court Solidifies Whistleblower Protections - Whistleblowing - United States
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/whistleblowing/1430920/supreme-court-so… A recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC has held that whistleblowers do not need to show retaliatory intent, or retaliatory animus, on the part of their employers in order to be protected under federal law, specifically under the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The Act defines whistleblowing as "any lawful act done by [an] employee to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation [of enumerated laws]" or "to file, cause to be filed, testify, or otherwise participate in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to [such] an alleged violation."1 Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation by employers under federal law because of the important role they serve in combatting corruption and maintaining health, safety, and security, even when doing so requires taking action against their employer and, as such, risking their livelihood. It is for this reason that protections for whistleblowers, such as SOX, exist. The SOX interpretation question in Murray brought before the Supreme Court was whether retaliatory intent must be proven for an individual to be protected under federal law. Trevor Murray was fired from UBS for refusing to skew his research reports on commercial mortgage-backed securities in favor of UBS's business strategies despite being pressured to do so. A Manhattan federal jury found for Murray and awarded him $903,300 in damages. Upon appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the award, arguing that SOX required whistleblowers to prove that their employer acted with retaliatory intent when firing them (something Murray had not explicitly proven). In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling, finding that the statutory text included no such intent requirement and that "showing that an employer acted with retaliatory animus is one way of proving that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action, but it is not the only way." Through the Supreme Court's ruling, the majority of justices make clear that, while a whistleblower must prove their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer's unfavorable personnel action, there is no requirement a whistleblower show that their employer had retaliatory intent in terminating them, or otherwise issuing an unfavorable change in the terms and conditions of employment. As such, now, attorneys no longer need to prove that retaliatory intent for an act of whistleblowing was the primary reason for their whistleblower client's termination, but only need to show that retaliation (even if not retaliatory intent) was a factor which influenced the termination. While it may be difficult for an employee to resolutely prove the primary reason for their termination, especially when an employer can point towards factors they can claim motivated an acceptable termination, by not requiring proof of retaliatory intent, the Supreme Court has made whistleblower protections more accessible as a pathway for wronged employees to advocate for themselves. As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling, employees may have an easier time demonstrating that their termination was due to retaliation following their whistleblowing complaints about alleged illegal actions undertaken by their employers. The case is Murray v. UBS Securities LLC , case number 22-660, before the Supreme Court of the United States. Footnote 1. https://www.whistleblowers.gov/statutes/sox_amended

1 0

New York Community Bancorp Was JPMorgan’s Top Regional Bank Pick for 2024; It’s Lost 73 Percent Y-T-D and Had Its Deposit Rating Downgraded to Junk
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/03/new-york-community-bancorp-was-jpmor… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: March 5, 2024 ~ New York Community Bancorp’s tumultuous share price descent began on January 31 when the bank filed an 8K form with the SEC indicating a $260 million net income loss in the fourth quarter; a dividend cut from 17 cents to 5 cents; and a $552 million provision for credit losses on commercial real estate. (Year-to-date, the company’s share price has lost 73 percent of its market value. Yesterday, its shares closed at $2.73, down 23 percent from the prior trading session on Friday, when the shares had lost 26 percent. ) Somehow, JPMorgan banking analyst Steven Alexopoulos was able to swat the gargantuan warning signs of January 31 away like a pesky gnat on an otherwise perfect day. On February 1, Alexopoulos penned a missive recommending that investors “take advantage of this valuation and accumulate shares on this weakness.” To drive home his strong buy recommendation, he wrote: “Not only do we maintain our Overweight rating, but NYCB remains our top pick for 2024.” JPMorgan’s bank analyst call on NYCB is turning out to be another embarrassing black mark at JPMorgan Chase, a bank that seems to have enshrined scandals and felony charges as part of its mega bank business model. JPMorgan’s strong buy rating on New York Community Bancorp came a mere 34 days ago. Here’s what has happened since then: On February 6, Moody’s downgraded the bank’s credit rating to junk. Moody’s also warned that a third of the bank’s deposits lack FDIC insurance. On February 29, NYCB made new filings with the SEC, this time announcing that its President and CEO, Thomas R. Cangemi, was being replaced by the Executive Chairman of the Board, Alessandro (Sandro) DiNello. In a separate filing, NYCB announced alarming “material weaknesses,” writing as follows: “…as part of management’s assessment of the Company’s internal controls, management identified material weaknesses in the Company’s internal controls related to internal loan review, resulting from ineffective oversight, risk assessment and monitoring activities. Although assessment of the Company’s internal controls is not yet complete, the Company expects to disclose in the 2023 Form 10-K that its disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting were not effective as of December 31, 2023. The Company’s remediation plan with respect to such material weaknesses is expected to be described in the 2023 Form 10-K.” “Material weaknesses” are two words that credit rating agencies never want to read in a deposit-taking bank’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. After markets closed last Friday, Moody’s cut the deposit rating on NYCB’s commercial bank by four notches, moving it deep into junk territory. That can’t have gone over well with the folks holding large amounts of uninsured deposits at the bank. (The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures commercial bank accounts up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank. Corporations and institutions frequently hold sums much greater than that at commercial banks.) On March 28 of last year, the Chair of the FDIC, Martin Gruenberg, delivered a report to the Senate Banking Committee on why Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank had failed last year. Among numerous problems, he noted the following: “In the immediate aftermath of the failure of SVB [Silicon Valley Bank] and Signature Bank, some preliminary lessons can be identified. A common thread between the failure of SVB and the failure of Signature Bank was the banks’ heavy reliance on uninsured deposits. As of December 31, 2022, Signature Bank reported that approximately 90 percent of its deposits were uninsured, and SVB reported that 88 percent of its deposits were uninsured. The significant proportion of uninsured deposit balances exacerbated deposit run vulnerabilities and made both banks susceptible to contagion effects from the quickly evolving financial developments. One clear takeaway from recent events is that heavy reliance on uninsured deposits creates liquidity risks that are extremely difficult to manage, particularly in today’s environment where money can flow out of institutions with incredible speed in response to news amplified through social media channels.” Yesterday, we wrote about the insightful investigation by financial watchdog, Better Markets, into how New York Community Bancorp ended up in such a mess. Better Markets’ researchers found the following: “In late 2022 and early 2023, the federal banking regulators inexplicably approved not one, but two, mergers for NYC Bancorp in rapid succession. First, in December 2022, Flagstar was acquired by NYC Bancorp and at the same time Flagstar acquired [New York Community Bank]. Then, only about 100 days later, Flagstar was selected as the winning bidder by the FDIC to acquire the failed Signature Bank (‘Signature’). A bank acquiring and integrating any one of these transactions in isolation would be challenging under the best of circumstances, it is inexplicable that the banking regulators allowed them in tandem under extremely stressed conditions.” And this: “…over the course of just two quarters, Flagstar’s two acquisitions quadrupled its asset size, from $25 billion on September 30, 2022, to $123 billion on March 31, 2023. It also more than doubled its employee count, from about 2,800 in September 2022 to 6,800 in March 2023.”

1 0

DOJ Worried Binance Founder's Travel May 'Become An Issue'
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

DOJ Worried Binance Founder's Travel May 'Become An Issue' <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1809653?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…> By Greg Lamm Binance founder Changpeng Zhao should have to notify the government of any travel as he awaits sentencing, prosecutors have said, telling a federal court in Washington they remain concerned he could be a flight risk. Brief attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1809653?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1809653?nl_pk=d2b3e7ef-ab62-4a62-80…>

1 0

Feds Urged Not To Let Mobile Cos. 'Centralize' Airwaves
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

Feds Urged Not To Let Mobile Cos. 'Centralize' Airwaves <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1809573?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> By Christopher Cole Mobile networks should not be allowed to amass so much of the airwaves that they inadvertently crowd out national security technologies or sideline shared spectrum models, a group of experts told the U.S. Commerce Department. Letter attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1809573?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1809573?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…>

1 0

Justices Won't Review Ex-Merrill Lynch Traders' Fraud Case
by Gunnar Larson 05 Mar '24

05 Mar '24

Justices Won't Review Ex-Merrill Lynch Traders' Fraud Case <https://www.law360.com/compliance/articles/1809431?nl_pk=ab5ce197-c1fb-4d8e…> By Elliot Weld The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will not take up an appeal from two former Merrill Lynch traders who were convicted in Chicago federal court of spoofing the precious metals market. Order attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/compliance/articles/1809431?nl_pk=ab5ce197-c1fb-4d8e…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/compliance/articles/1809431?nl_pk=ab5ce197-c1fb-4d8e…>

1 0