- IRS Rewrites the Internal Revenue Manual Section on Closing Agreements for Tax-Advantaged Bonds: Squire Patton Boggs
- GASB Issues Proposed Implementation Guide on Leases.
- Closing of SLGS Window Will Affect 3 Types of Muni Transactions.
- The New 15c2-12 Event Requirements – A Practical Approach to Underwriter Due Diligence: Gilmore Bell
- The New 15c2-12 Event Requirements – A Practical Approach to Issuer Compliance: Gilmore Bell
- MSRB Establishes New Effective Date for Advertising Rules and Adopts BDA Position on Social Media Guidance.
- FINRA Launches New Self-Reporting Initiative for 529 Savings Plan Violations.
- C-PACE De-Mystified: C-PACE Alliance Releases New Guide That Explains Bonds vs. Direct Financing For Commercial Pace.
- Register Today: NABL U Presents The Essentials
- And finally, I Knew Brown v. Board, Brown v. Board Was A Friends of Mine. You, Sir, Are No Brown v. Board is brought to us this week by Perez v. County of Monterey, in which two brothers challenged the constitutionality of a county ordinance requiring that “no one may keep more than four roosters on a single property without a rooster-keeping operation permit.” So many questions, but we’re gonna skip them in order to bring you the following delightful snippets from the opinion: “minors who keep roosters for an educational purpose”; “poultry hobbyists”; “plaintiffs assert the rooster keeping ordinance imposes a burden on interstate commerce”; “it does not force all rooster owners to immediately divest themselves of all but four roosters”‘ and, “plaintiffs have provided no evidence to support their assertion that the ordinance will result in roosters being sold, nor have they provided evidence of how that would affect interstate commerce”. Mr. Leghorn, please state your name for the record.