PODCAST: Anti-Money Laundering and the New Beneficial Ownership Rule — C&M's Trump: The First Year Series
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.22.17
What does the new beneficial ownership rule mean for lenders and other businesses? As part of our “Trump: The First Year” series, International Trade Group partners Carlton Greene and Cari Stinebower sit down with Commercial Finance & Lending Senior Counsel Scott Lessne to discuss the new rule. Prior to joining the firm in 2015, Carlton served as chief counsel of FinCEN and also worked for OFAC at the Dept. of the Treasury. Cari has previously worked as an attorney advisor for the Office of the General Counsel at OFAC. Scott's practice involves the representation of financial institutions and corporate clients in connection with the negotiation and documentation of commercial, asset-based, project-related, and real estate loan transactions.
Discussed in this 33 minute podcast:
- An overview of the new CDD rule, including what is covered.
- How can banks identify beneficial owners? Who is responsible?
- How does this affect small institutions versus large ones?
- What new technology might affect this space?
- What do covered businesses need to know and do?
Click below to listen or access from one of these links:
PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
