As Peoples Bancorp Tries Buy and Dump in Kentucky Fair Finance Watch Writes to Warsh

As Peoples Bancorp Tries Buy and Dump in Kentucky Fair Finance Watch Writes to Warsh by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SOUTH BRONX/SDNY, May 29 – Peoples Bancorp of Ohio proposes to expand into Kentucky by buying Citizens Bank there - then dumping its securities business to game the system and stay under the $10 billion line and away from the defanged CPFB.   Fair Finance Watch, after the Federal Reserve refused to act to ensure public access to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data,  has commented to the Fed on the 2024 HMDA data of Peoples - and on the scam: Dear Chairman Warsh, Secretary Misback:     This is early opposition to the application of Peoples Bancorp Inc. of Marietta, Ohio to acquire Citizens National Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire Citizens Bank of Kentucky, Inc., both of Paintsville, Kentucky.    What is most striking about this proposed acquisition, and calls for inquiry, hearing and denial, is the gaming of the system. The proposed acquisition would take Peoples over $10 billion - to avoid that, and fly under the radar, Peoples proposes to buy Citizens and then immediately sell off its securities portfolio and more.     It's like consciousness of guilty - what is People's so afraid of? The CFPB?     Seemingly relatedly, Fair Finance Watch hereby entered into the record, at the earliest time, Peoples Bank's disparate records of lending in its home state, Ohio.    In 2024 in Ohio, People's Bank (LEI I70W3N0Z6KOX8FYIH023) made fully 981 mortgage loans to whites, while denying only 272 - meanwhile it made only 28 loans to African Americans, while denying fully 14.        Evidentiary hearings are needed on this application. There are consumer complaints, but the FRB has declared that even CFPB database complaints, no matter the volume, are not "substantive." We disagree - and ask for a hearing on these issues as well. Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com SDNY Press Room 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2025 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

On AI Beat As Suno Hides Its Training Data It Opposes Inner City Press Request to Unseal Citing UMG

FEDERAL COURT, May 29 – In the lawsuit between UMG Recordings and Sumo, many court filings have been sealed. On May 22 Inner City Press as part of its expanding artificial intelligence beat coverage filed to unseal.

   U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge F. Dennis Saylor, to his credit, docketed Inner City Press' application to unseal, and directed the defendant to respond to it by May 29:

"A member of the press has submitted a letter opposing the motion to impound. (Dkt. No. [233]). Consistent with the protective order, defendant shall, on or before May 29, 2026, file with the Court a statement of the reasons the material should be impounded that complies with Local Rule 7.2 and addresses the issues raised in the letter."

On May 29, Suno's law firm replied that "Disclosure of the Model Training Figure would cause competitive harm for Suno, and good cause exists to grant the narrow impoundment Suno requests. Plaintiffs do not oppose Suno’s motion, but third-party Inner City Press has filed an opposition requesting that the Court “deny the impoundment or require [Suno] to make a specific, particularized showing of good cause before any material remains under seal.” See Dkt. 233 at 1."

So what if UMG "does not oppose Suno's motion"?

    Here's from Inner City Press' request:

I am a reporter for Inner City Press and respectfully submit this letter in opposition to the impoundment of the supporting papers filed at Docket 230 on May 21, 2026, in the above- captioned matter, and requests that the Court deny the impoundment or require Defendant Suno, Inc. to make a specific, particularized showing of good cause before any material remains under seal. 

  This is not an ordinary copyright case. UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, and Sony Music Entertainment — three of the largest record labels in the world — have sued Suno, Inc., one of the leading artificial intelligence music generation companies, for copyright infringement based on Suno's use of recorded music to train its AI system. The central question — whether and how AI companies may lawfully use copyrighted works to train generative AI models — is among the most consequential legal issues of this era.  The answer will shape the future of the music industry, the AI industry, and the rights of artists, composers, and copyright holders across every creative field. Millions of musicians, songwriters, and listeners have a direct stake in this litigation. So does every technology company developing AI systems trained on human creative work. This is precisely the category of case in which the public's First Amendment and common law right of access to judicial records is at its zenith. 

Docket 230 impounds:  • Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Amended Complaint • Exhibit A to the Declaration of Rajan S. Trehan • Exhibit B to the Declaration of Rajan S. Trehan • Declaration of Daniel Delorey 

These are not peripheral discovery documents — they are the core pleadings and supporting submissions for Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs' memorandum of law contains the legal arguments that will define the scope of this litigation. The Trehan declaration exhibits and the Delorey declaration contain evidence about Suno's training data that goes to the heart of the copyright infringement claims.  The motion states that this material "contains information regarding Defendant Suno Inc.'s training data" designated "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" by Suno under the operative Protective Order. Dkt. 230 at 1. 

The motion itself reveals the critical procedural reality: Plaintiffs "expressly reserve the right to object to Suno's sealing the designated material." Dkt. 230 at 1. Plaintiffs are impounding the material not because they believe it should be sealed, but because Suno's "Highly Confidential" designation under the protective order compels them to seek impoundment as a precondition to filing.  This is the same dynamic that courts have recognized as problematic in other sealing contexts: a well- resourced defendant uses a stipulated protective order to designate materials as confidential, effectively forcing the opposing party — and the public — to accept sealing that the opposing party itself opposes. The parties agreed that Suno would have five business days to file a statement of good cause. See Dkt. 180 ¶ 22. That deadline is approximately May 28-29, 2026.  Inner City Press urges the Court to hold Suno to a rigorous standard when it files that statement.

 Under First Circuit precedent, there is a qualified First Amendment and common law right of access to judicial records, including documents filed in connection with substantive motions. In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002); FTC v. Standard Financial Management Corp., 830 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1987). The First Circuit has recognized that the presumption of access is especially strong for documents that are "central to the adjudicatory process." Standard Financial, 830 F.2d at 410.  A motion to amend a complaint — and the memorandum of law and declarations supporting it — are core adjudicatory documents. They define the claims, identify the evidence, and shape the entire course of the litigation. A party asserting that such documents should be impounded must demonstrate specific, particularized harm from disclosure — not a generic invocation of "Highly Confidential" designations made during discovery.  The question of what data Suno used to train its AI model is not a peripheral trade secret — it is the central factual question in this case. Suno has made public statements about its AI capabilities and training methodology. The notion that the training data facts are so sensitive that even the legal arguments about them must be hidden from the public does not satisfy the First Circuit's standard. 

 The impounded materials address what music Suno used to train its AI system. This information is of direct public concern for several reasons:  First, copyright law is a public law. It defines the rights of creators and the obligations of those who use creative works. The public has a right to know what conduct is being alleged and what evidence supports those allegations.  Second, the AI training data debate is a matter of active public policy. Congress, the Copyright Office, and regulatory agencies worldwide are actively considering how to address AI training data and copyright. The judicial record in this case is important public input into that debate.  Third, artists and musicians — whose works may be at issue — have a direct interest in understanding what is alleged about how their recordings were used. Impounding that information from them is particularly inappropriate.

  Inner City Press respectfully requests that the Court:  (1) Decline to impound Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 230) in its entirety, as legal argument does not constitute protectable confidential information and the public has a First Amendment right to access pleadings that define the scope of litigation;  (2) Require Defendant Suno, when it files its statement of good cause under Local Rule 7.2 and Dkt. 180 ¶ 22, to identify with specificity which particular facts or passages in each document would cause concrete competitive harm if disclosed, and why that harm outweighs the public interest in access;  (3) Consider whether targeted redaction of specific proprietary technical details — rather than wholesale impoundment of entire documents — would adequately protect any legitimate confidentiality interests while preserving public access to the legal arguments and general factual contentions; and  (4) Make specific findings on the public docket as to any material that remains impounded, consistent with the First Circuit's requirement that sealing orders be supported by specific findings. Standard Financial, 830 F.2d at 412.  The copyright questions presented in this case — whether and how AI companies may use recorded music to train generative models — will be decided in large part on the factual record now being developed. The public, including working musicians, AI developers, and every person who interacts with AI-generated content, deserves to understand the evidence and arguments that will determine those questions. The First Amendment right of access exists precisely for cases and requests such as this.

  The case is UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. (1:24-cv-11611) District Court, D. Massachusetts (F. Dennis Saylor IV)

Watch this site.

  

More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here

As FS Bancorp Tries Buy Pacific West Bank in Oregon Fair Finance Watch Challenges to FRB

As FS Bancorp Tries Buy Pacific West Bank in Oregon Fair Finance Watch Challenges to FRB by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SOUTH BRONX/SDNY, May 29 – FS Bancorp proposes to expand in Oregon by buying Pacific West Bank there.   Fair Finance Watch, after the Federal Reserve refused to act to ensure public access to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data,  has commented to the Fed on the 2024 HMDA data of FS Bancorp:    This is early opposition to the application of FS Bancorp, Inc., to acquire Pacific West Bancorp, and Pacific West Bank.      In Washington State in 2024, FS Bancorp's 1st Security Bank of Washington made 929 loans to whites, with only 59 denials- versus only NINETEEN to African Americans, while denying one.     Evidentiary hearings are needed on this application. There are consumer complaints, but the FRB has declared that even CFPB database complaints, no matter the volume, are not "substantive." We disagree - and ask for a hearing on these issues as well. Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com SDNY Press Room 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2025 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com