2015: Schweikert Voted For Repealing The Requirement For Indemnification Agreements For Litigation Expanses Relating To The Information Provided By Swap-Clearing Organizations. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for repealing requirement for indemnification agreements for any expanses that may arise from litigation relating to the information provided by swap-clearing organizations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The indemnification clause under current law protects the CFTC and U.S.-regulated swap data repositories and derivatives-clearing organizations from financial loss in the case of a lawsuit arising from information shared between American and foreign regulators. Historically, these entities have shared information to cooperate and exchange views, and, prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, international guidelines required the foreign regulators to maintain the confidentiality of data they receive. However, the idea of indemnification, required under Dodd-Frank, is very American; non-U.S. firms and regulators are unfamiliar with the concept and unwilling or unable to indemnify private third-party entities. The bill repeals the requirement that the SEC and CFTC obtain indemnification agreements for any expenses that may arise from litigation relating to the information provided by swap-clearing organizations. However, it retains current law provisions that requires each swap-clearing organization to maintain confidentiality agreements." The underlying "modifie[d] numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth." The vote was on passage. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 271 to 154. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Repealing Requirement For Indemnification Agreements For Any Expanses That May Arise From Litigation Relating To The Information Provided By Swap-Clearing Organizations. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for Repealing requirement for indemnification agreements for any expanses that may arise from litigation relating to the information provided by swap-clearing organizations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill modifies numerous requirements under Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws in an effort to reduce the impact of those laws on certain entities and spur business growth. Among its provisions, it exempts certain end users of derivatives from margin calls and allows issuers of securities to submit a disclosures report aimed at increasing investor comprehension. It also exempts certain entities from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration requirements, and includes several provisions to help emerging growth companies raise capital and grow [...] The indemnification clause under current law protects the CFTC and U.S.-regulated swap data repositories and derivatives-clearing organizations from financial loss in the case of a lawsuit arising from information shared between American and foreign regulators. Historically, these entities have shared information to cooperate and exchange views, and, prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, international guidelines required the foreign regulators to maintain the confidentiality of data they receive. However, the idea of indemnification, required under Dodd-Frank, is very American; non-U.S. firms and regulators are unfamiliar with the concept and unwilling or unable to indemnify private third-party entities [...] The bill repeals the requirement that the SEC and CFTC obtain indemnification agreements for any expenses that may arise from litigation relating to the information provided by swap-clearing organizations. However, it retains current law provisions that requires each swap-clearing organization to maintain confidentiality agreements." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which required a two-thirds majority to succeed. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 276 to 146. The bill later came up for a vote and passed the House 271 to 154. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 9, 1/7/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/15; House Vote 37, 1/14/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 9/30/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 37]