InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
BAFT Announces 2017 Global Payments Symposium; Will Highlight Advances in Payments Innovation, Blockchain, and Artificial Intelligence
On July 19 and 20, the Bankers Association for Finance and Trade (BAFT) will host its 2017 Global Payments Symposium in New York City. The symposium will help bankers and payments professionals understand the latest innovation trends affecting compliance, payments, blockchain, fintech, cybercrime, and artificial intelligence, among others. BAFT will also discuss methods to integrate innovations into the business lines and how global challenges and best practices impact the U.S.
Federal Reserve Announces Updates to Regulation CC Regarding Electronic Checks
On May 31, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) announced final amendments to the check collection and return provisions in Regulation CC, Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks, which implements the Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act of 2003 and the official staff commentary of the regulation. The amendments update Regulation CC “to reflect the evolution of the nation's check collection system from one that is largely paper-based to one that is virtually all electronic.” The Board (i) retained the current same-day settlement rule for paper checks; (ii) applied Regulation CC’s existing check warranties to check that are collected electronically; and (iii) adopted new warranties and indemnities related to checks collected and returned electronically and to electronically-created items.
In addition to the final rule, the Board also requested comments on proposed language amending Regulation CC's existing liability provisions to include a presumption that a substitute or electronic check was altered instead of forged in the event of a dispute under federal or state law in the absence of evidence such as the original check. Comments on the proposed amendments are requested within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register.
West Virginia Enacts Law Defining "Cryptocurrency" in Context of Money Laundering
On April 26, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice approved new legislation (H.B 2585) that defines cryptocurrency in the context of money laundering. Specifically, “cryptocurrency” is defined as “digital currency in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of funds, and which operate independently of a central bank.” Furthermore, the term “monetary instruments”—traditionally defined, for example, as coin, currency, checks, gift and prepaid credit cards—would now include cryptocurrency. With respect to the anti-money laundering clause, the legislation makes it unlawful to “conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction,” which would include cryptocurrency transactions, “involving the proceeds of criminal activity knowing that the property involved in the financial transaction represents the proceeds of, or is derived directly or indirectly from the proceeds of, criminal activity.” H.B. 2585 also outlines penalty structures for violations of the legislation—misdemeanor or felony charges depending on the severity of the crime—and allows for forfeiture or disgorgement of cryptocurrency.
CFPB Fines Prepaid Debit Card Company and Payment Processor $13 Million for Preventable Service Breakdown, Claims Consumers Denied Access to Their Own Money
On February 1, the CFPB announced that it had entered a consent order against two companies—a prepaid card company and its payment processor—for failing to conduct adequate testing and preparation before and during a switch to a new payment processing platform in 2015. In addition, the Bureau cited both companies for improper administration of accounts after the switch. The allegations arise out of an approximate three week breakdown in services in October 2015 which, among other things, denied cardholders access to their accounts, delayed the processing of deposits and payments, and also, in some instances, erroneously double posted deposits which falsely inflated account holders’ balances. The consent order also notes that the prepaid card company failed to provide adequate customer service to consumers impacted by the breakdown. The CFPB stated that it received roughly 830 consumer complaints in the weeks following the switch. Based on these and other allegations, the Bureau ordered the two companies to prepare a plan to prevent future service disruptions and pay an estimated $10 million in restitution to harmed consumers as well as a $3 million civil penalty.
Texas Appeals Court Holds Email From: Line to be a Valid Electronic Signature Under State's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA)
On December 22, in an unpublished decision, a Texas Court of Appeals held that an email exchange constituted an executed contract between two individuals under the state’s enactment of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Khoury v. Tomlinson, No. 01-16-00006-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 22, 2016). The dispute involved an email sent from Appellant to Appellee, which outlined terms of an agreement to repay investment funds. Appellee responded to the email, stating "We are in agreement," but did not type his name or include a signature block at the end of his message. A jury found that an electronic contract was formed by this exchange, but the trial court granted the Appellee’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis that the electronic contract violated the state statute of frauds. On appeal, the Appellant invoked the UETA, arguing that the email satisfied the writing requirement of the statute of frauds because it was an electronic record and that the header, which included a “From:” field bearing the Appellee’s name, constituted Appellee’s signature because that field serves the same “authenticating function” as a signature block. The appellate court agreed that the email was an electronic record sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement in the statute of frauds.
DOL Releases Second Set of FAQs Addressing Comments Concerning Fiduciary Rule
On January 13, the Department of Labor (DOL) released a second set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) in response to comments from financial services firms and other stakeholders on its recently-released Fiduciary Rule, which redefines a fiduciary investment advisor under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The DOL issued an initial set of 34 answers to FAQs about the Fiduciary Rule back in October, focusing on the rule’s exemptions, such as the “best-interest contract” exemption and the “prohibited-transaction” exemption. The second set of FAQs provides further clarification on the scope of various exemptions regarding investment recommendations, but also includes guidance on topics such as: (i) investment education; (ii) general communications versus fiduciary investment advice; (iii) fees and other compensation; and (iv) platform providers.
The FAQs further reflect, among other things, that an adviser charging clients a level asset-based fee for providing advice on 401(k) fund offerings may use revenue-sharing payments to offset part or all of that level fee, without running afoul of the fiduciary regulation. The guidance also clarifies that providing educational information to IRA and retirement customers about investment alternatives—such as product features, returns and fees—will not be considered “investment advice” so long as a bank does not make any specific investment recommendations. And, in question 34, the DOL explains that fiduciary status is not triggered by offering to customers an automatic sweep of any uninvested cash from the customer’s account into a short-term investment vehicle on a daily basis.
PA Amends Money Transmission Business Licensing Law
Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Banking and Securities, Robin L. Wiessmann, issued guidance to businesses engaged in money transmission to inform them of significant changes that will be required for their businesses as a result of amendments to the Money Transmission Business Licensing Law. Governor Tom Wolf signed the changes into law on November 3, 2016 (Act 129 of 2016) and the new law became effective on January 2, 2017.
CFPB Unveils Web-based Tool To Deliver Regular Updates on Consumer Lending Markets
On December 19, the CFPB announced the release of “Consumer Credit Trends,” a beta version of its new web-based tool to help the public monitor developments in the mortgage, credit card, auto loan, and student loan markets. According to the Bureau, the data used by Consumer Credit Trends “draws from a nationally representative sample of credit records maintained by one of the top three U.S. credit repositories.” The CFPB plans to update this information regularly, and will offer analyses on notable findings as warranted. It also clarifies that “before being provided to the Bureau,” the credit records are “stripped of any information that might reveal consumers’ identities, such as names, addresses, and Social Security numbers.” The ability to “chart the state of consumer markets,” says CFPB Director Richard Cordray, “will help us identify and act on trends that warn of another crisis or that show credit is too constricted.”
US Court Rejects DocuSign e-Signatures as Method to Provide Digital Authorization
Back in July, the United States bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of California held that under its local rules, an attorney submitting electronically signed documents for filing with the court must maintain an originally signed document in paper form bearing a “wet” signature. In re Mayfield, No. 16-22134-D-7, 2016 WL 3958982 (U.S. Bankr. Ct. E.D. Cal.). The United States Trustee (UST) filed a motion for sanctions against a debtor’s attorney who used the an electronic signature platform to have the debtor execute certain documents that were subsequently filed with the court. The court’s local rules 9004-1(C) and (D) provide that if these documents were executed with a “software-generated electronic signature,” the submitting attorney is required to maintain “an originally signed document in paper form” and produce it upon request by the UST. When asked by the UST to produce the original signed versions of the documents he filed, the debtor’s attorney was unable to do so. In response to the motion, the debtor’s attorney argued that the requirements of 9004-1(C) and (D) did not apply because the electronic signatures were manually created by the debtor’s actions taken on the electronic signature platform. As such, they were not “software-generated electronic signatures” within the meaning of the rule, and under the federal ESIGN Act constituted “original” signatures.
Ultimately, the court held that: (i) the ESIGN Act was not applicable because of the express exemption for court rules at 15 USC § 7003(b)(1), thereby permitting the court to establish and interpret its own rules with respect to electronic signatures, (ii) the electronic signatures created using the platform were within the meaning of the term “software-generated electronic signature” under the local rules, and (iii) the local rule’s reference to “an originally signed document in paper form” required the attorney to also maintain a copy of the document bearing a “wet ink” signature. Accordingly, the Court granted the UST’s motion and, as the sanction imposed, required the debtor’s attorney to certify completion of the court’s online e-filing training course.
CFPB Releases Student Banking Report Examining Credit Card Marketing Deals Targeting College Students
On December 14, the CFPB released a student banking report analyzing roughly 500 marketing agreements between colleges, universities and affiliated organizations, and large banks in an effort to identify trends in the school-sponsored credit card market. The report found in part that while credit cards offered in conjunction with educational institutions have declined since the CARD Act was enacted in 2009, many similar offers and deals still exist and may include features that lead students to rack up hundreds of dollars in fees. As explained by CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman Seth Frotman, “Colleges across the country continue to make deals with banks to promote products that have high fees, despite the availability of safer and more affordable products.” According to Mr. Frotman, “Students shouldn’t get stuck with the bill when their school inks a deal for an account that’s not in their best interest.”
In conjunction with the publication of this report, the Bureau also published a new compliance bulletin to assist colleges in understanding their obligations under the CARD Act and Regulation Z related to college credit card agreements. This bulletin noted, among other items, that many of the largest colleges and universities do not publish credit card agreements on their websites or make them available to students and the public upon request, creating increased risks of non-compliance. The complete set of credit card agreement data collected by the Bureau in accordance with its obligations under the Credit CARD Act of 2009 can be accessed here.