Episode 378 -- Update on Export Controls and Sanctions Enforcement
The Capital Ratio Podcast | Entering the US Banking Market
Managing Sanctions Compliance
Compliance Tip of the Day: Standing at the Turning Point
CHPS Podcast Episode 2: Bitcoin in the Halls of Power
FCPA Compliance Report: Death of CTA
Regulatory Ramblings: Episode 66 – The U.S. Strategic Reserve and the Emerging Multipolar Crypto World + Recent Developments in US Virtual Asset Regulation with Henri Arslanian and Andrew Fei
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 48 – The March Madness Edition
FINCast Ep. 40 – 21st Century Financial Warfare: Technology, Economy, & National Security
All Things Investigations: Terrorism Designations of Mexican Cartels Fundamentally Enhances Risk for All Companies
Daily Compliance News: March 14, 2025, The $200 Transaction Edition
Exploring the CFPB's Stance on AI in Financial Services — The Consumer Finance Podcast
An Introduction to DAFs and Overview of the Newly Proposed DAF Regulations
Analyzing the Treasury's Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Decentralized Finance - The Crypto Exchange Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Look at the Treasury Department’s April 2023 Report on Decentralized Finance or “DeFi”
Torres Talks Trade podcast Episode 8 on Worker-Centered Trade
Kilptrick Townsend Digital Assets Minute | U.S. Treasury—Comments on Digital Assets Development Due August 8th
Stablecoin Regulation in an Unstable Time: The Fed and Treasury Address a Stablecoin Regulatory Framework
New Regulation: Statutes, Pillars, and the Build Back Better Act
Congressional and Federal Agency Action Following Executive Order on Digital Assets Policy
On July 22, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which dismissed an amended complaint brought by...more
In a recent win for health care providers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision to vacate key portions of regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury,...more
On December 18, 2023, the US Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) issued a rule finalizing the 2024 non-refundable administrative fee parties must pay to access the arbitration...more
On September 20, 2023, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (the Departments) announced the Federal Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) Process Administrative Fee and Certified IDR Entity Fee...more
By looking at the events that have transpired since the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which includes the No Surprises Act (the Act), was signed into law, it is clear that the Departments of Health and Human Services,...more
The Texas Medical Association and additional plaintiffs have brought four Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges to the rules and guidance implementing the No Surprises Act (NSA) (termed TMA I, II, III and IV). The...more
It’s likely no surprise to anyone who has been following the implementation of the No Surprises Act over the last couple of years that we again find ourselves on an uncertain path. While Regs & Eggs has focused on some of the...more
On August 3, 2023, health care providers in Texas scored yet another victory when a federal court vacated additional portions of the Biden Administration’s rules governing fee collection and claim batching under the federal...more
Last week, a number of developments arose stemming from the various lawsuits challenging the No Surprises Act. First, in response to the Eastern District of Texas’ order vacating the administrative fee guidance for the...more
On February 6, a US district court in Texas vacated provisions of the No Surprises Act final rule related to the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process for determining payment for out-of-network services....more
In parallel cases, health care providers are continuing to challenge rulemaking by the US Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) under the No Surprises Act (the Act). Having already...more
In late September 2022, health care providers in Texas sued the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (collectively, the Departments) over a recently issued final rule implementing the federal No...more
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas granted the Texas Medical Association’s and Adam Corley’s (the Plaintiffs) motion for summary judgment on their...more
Two chambers of commerce, the Chamber of Commerce the United States of America and the Tyler (TX) Area Chamber of Commerce, filed a lawsuit on August 10, 2021, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas...more
On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing employers’ religious freedoms in very different contexts: one concerning whether religious school teachers could challenge adverse employment...more
On July 8, 2020, in the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al. and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Pennsylvania et al., the U.S. Supreme...more
On Wednesday, July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether religious employers are required to offer their employees health plans that include contraceptive coverage. In its opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor v....more
The Supreme Court just upheld two Trump-era rules expanding religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate. The July 8 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania is just...more
In Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court this week upheld regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) that...more
On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two 7-2 decisions involving religious exemptions to federal employment and benefits laws....more
This week, the Supreme Court ruled that employers may exclude coverage for birth control from their health plans based upon moral or religious objections to contraception. ...more
Until this week, federal law required most insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control without a copay. However, the history behind this issue can be traced back much further....more
On July 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services validly created...more
Editor's Overview - In this month’s newsletter, our colleagues focus on two sets of legislative updates. First is a discussion of the IRS’s proposed Treasury Regulations prescribing rules under Section 457 of the...more