Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) is a United States law (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.), enacted October 28, 1974, [1] that makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to ...
SEC Rule 10b5-1, codified at 17 CFR 240.10b5-1, was enacted as a regulation by the SEC in 2000. [11] The SEC stated that Rule 10b5-1 was enacted in order to resolve an unsettled issue over the definition of insider trading , [ 12 ] which is prohibited by SEC Rule 10b-5.
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) of 1974, implemented by Regulation B, requires creditors which regularly extend credit to customers—including banks, retailers, finance companies, and bank-card companies—to evaluate candidates on creditworthiness alone, rather than other factors such as race, color, religion, national origin, or sex ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
SEC Rule 10b5-1, codified at 17 CFR 240.10b5-1, is a regulation enacted by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2000. [1] The SEC states that Rule 10b5-1 was enacted in order to resolve an unsettled issue over the definition of insider trading, [2] which is prohibited by SEC Rule 10b-5.
The Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) is a United States federal law passed during the 93rd United States Congress and enacted on October 28, 1974 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.) and as the third title of the same bill signed into law by President Gerald Ford that also enacted the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
These states are considering bills to opt out of this federal provision, aiming to exert more local control over interest rate regulations. [7] The legislative actions seeking to repeal DIDMCA-like policies have been criticized by examining Colorado's experience, as detailed in a study by J Howard Beales III and Andrew Stivers.
A nondiscriminatory regulation serving substantial state purpose is not invalid simply because it causes some business to shift from a predominantly out-of-state industry to a predominantly in-state industry. Only if the burden on interstate commerce clearly outweighs the State's legitimate purpose does such a regulation violate the commerce ...