Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

OA50: Obama's Fiduciary Rule (With Guest Ben Offit) (Patreon)

Published:
2017-03-10 06:19:20
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

In today's episode, we take a look at a rule first proposed by President Obama's Department of Labor in 2016 that would require financial advisers to abide by a "fiduciary" duty with their clients.  What does that mean?  Listen and find out!

We begin with a relevant note about the status of the rule, which is due to be implemented in 60 days.

Next, in our main segment, we take a look at the implications of the Fiduciary Rule by consulting an expert; in this case, certified financial planner Ben Offit, who has a somewhat novel take on this enhanced obligation.  He breaks down what the proposed rule means for you and the financial professionals you might hire.

After the main segment, we turn to a petition that has been garnering significant attention on the Internet:  #ReVote2017.  What is it?  Is it really pending before the Supreme Court, and what does that mean?

Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #14 regarding the tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!

Show Notes & Links

  1. To find out more about Ben and his services, you can visit his firm, Clear Path Advisory, or email Ben at ben@clearpathadvisory.com.
  2. This is the announcement that the Fiduciary Rule has been postponed for 60 days.
  3. You can also check out the text of the Fiduciary Rule itself.
  4. This is the hilarious petition for writ of mandamus filed by the #ReVote 2017 petitioners.
  5. And this is the docket entry for their petition, which is currently pending before the Court and will be denied on March 17, 2017, one week from today.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Files

Comments

Anonymous

I think the answer is "D" because I believe that the victim can demonstrate that they suffered harm as they "required medical treatment". Also the "strict liability" phrase is ringing true for me. I don't think it's "A" because you don't always have to be present to be the victim of a crime. If the psychopath had kidnapped the victims baby, wouldn't the parent be the victim as well as the kidnapped child?

Anonymous

I was doing some googling and I think the key here is "intentional" emotional distress vs "negligent" emotional distress. The defendant would have to have done something directly to the victim to sue for intentional distress. The family member suing wasn't the receiver of the torturer's act. At least this is my understanding.

law
>>4243914

Not necessarily; for non-scienter-based torts, the test is whether the tortfeasor intends the act that proximately causes the injury, not whether he specifically intends to harm the plaintiff. See above hiding-under-the-bed hypothetical.