Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri For the past 30 years, the rules and requirements for banks and savings & loan registrants for making disclosures to investors have been a mess as they simply duplicated other rules and requirements of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). This failed to take into account major changes in financial reporting since 1986 when the last substantive update to Industry Guide 3, Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies, the guide published by the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. U.S. immigration policy since Donald Trump became President in January, 2017 has generally followed a consistent path – the Trump administration will issue a controversial anti-immigration policy, litigation will be filed against the policy, and no one knows for certain if the policy will take effect until the litigation is resolved. Such is the case concerning the Trump administration’s final “public charge” rule, announced in August and due to take effect on October 15. However, on October 11, 3 Federal courts issued injunctions against the Trump administration’s final “public charge” rule.
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. When the Federal judiciary has blocked anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration, it has most commonly been Federal judges in California (U.S. District Courts in California, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California) that have issued these rulings. As California is viewed as a “liberal-leaning, Blue state”, such results are not surprising. However, even Federal judges from “conservative-leaning, Red states”, such as Texas, can issue decisions that are adverse to the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration. As one example of such a decision, a Federal
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. It would not be a surprise to see that the Trump administration has simply decided to ban all immigration to the United States. While such is not yet actually the case, it seems that, with its continuing policies that are adverse to immigrant rights, the Trump administration is moving in that direction. As another potential example of the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration, the Trump administration is considering a significant increase in the fees to appeal immigration cases. As reported by buzzfeednews.com on September 17, the Trump administration (from
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. While the Federal judiciary often has been viewed as the best hope to protect immigrant rights against the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration, concern has been expressed about whether the Supreme Court can in fact serve in this role. The argument is that the recent appointments of Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by President Trump will give the Supreme Court a conservative bent that will cause it to support the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration. As one decision that appears to support this argument,
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program dating back to 1990 continues to be an attractive route to U.S. citizenship and the participation rate for the program has remained high among foreign investors. Importantly, almost 40,000 EB-5 petitions have been filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over the past three years. Since its inception, the EB-5 program has proven to be beneficial to the U.S. economy as well. It has truly emerged as a vital source for job creation and has helped stimulate the U.S. economy. The EB-5