InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
California appeals court says lender cannot move bitcoin loan suit to Delaware
On June 14, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed a trial court’s decision staying a suit against a lender and its loan payment processor (collectively, “defendants”) and enforcing a Delaware forum selection clause. The appeals court held that the plaintiff borrower’s unwaivable right to a jury trial under California law could be violated if the case proceeded in Delaware. According to the opinion, the plaintiff obtained $2.275 million in loans secured by bitcoin from the lender (a Delaware LLC that is licensed and regulated by California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation). When the value of bitcoin dropped, the lender sold the plaintiff’s bitcoin under the terms of the governing loan agreements. The plaintiff sued, “seeking, among other things, damages, return of his bitcoin, and cancellation of the loan agreements.” The defendants moved to stay the case because the Delaware forum selection clause required the case to be litigated in Delaware. The plaintiff countered that transferring the case to Delaware would “substantially diminish” his unwaivable rights under California law. The trial court eventually concluded that transferring the case to Delaware would not diminish the plaintiff’s rights and granted the stay pending litigation in Delaware. The trial court also stayed a second suit brought by the plaintiff alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, holding that the second suit involved the same primary rights as the first suit.
In reviewing the consolidated cases, the appeals court determined, among other things, that the Delaware forum selection clause in this case contains a predispute jury waiver. “Because California has a fundamental policy against such a waiver, Defendants carry the burden of proving that Delaware would not diminish this important right,” the appeals court wrote, adding that under Delaware law “contractual provisions that waive the contracting parties’ right to trial by jury have been upheld, and relevant case law provides insufficient assurance that Delaware courts will apply California’s important public policy to this dispute.” Additionally, the appeals court concluded that the defendants’ proposed “offer to stipulate that the Delaware court should apply California law” provides “little assurance that a Delaware court would enforce such a stipulation under the facts present here.”
CFTC Commissioner Romero discusses crypto regulation
On June 14, CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero discussed cryptocurrency regulation in an interview. According to sources, Romero rejected suggestions that the agency would be laissez-faire on cryptocurrency regulation, saying that the CFTC is positioned to protect consumers if provided with more authority. Throughout the interview, Romero noted some similarities between the present market and the 2008 market, stating that there is a “pretty sizeable market that’s largely unregulated.” Noting that a “regulatory gap” exists because the CFTC does not have any regulatory authority over the cash spot market, Romero said that Congress should close that gap. She mentioned her support for a bill similar to the Responsible Financial Innovation Act that she expects will give the CFTC more authority and will be introduced by Senators Stabenow and Bozeman. When asked about the possibility of regulation slowing the crypto market, Romero responded that “companies can’t scale up the way they need to without a lot of the financial institutions investments,” and that “regulation is needed.” She further noted that “bringing credibility [and] bring[ing] customer protections [] are going to be really important for scaling up.” She also referred to the case-by-case philosophy of CFTC enforcement actions, explaining that the agency looks at “where the evidence lies" and that part of this approach is "send[ing] a message to deter future violations of the law.” She further expanded on that point by saying that “since the CFTC doesn’t have regulatory authority, it has to rely on victims and whistleblowers," among other things.
Romero also mentioned that a difference between now and 2008 is that there are not a lot of financial institutions invested in cryptocurrency, as many are “waiting for a regulatory framework" and more regulation. As more financial institutions become invested in cryptocurrency, she said that she expects there to be “more interconnections” and more customer protections. She also noted that her biggest concern is that “if regulation fails to keep pace with technology, the most vulnerable people are going to be hurt.” In terms of areas needing more customer protections, Romero identified the need for segregation of accounts, settlement, custody, and reducing cybersecurity risk. She also expressed her support for customer education, calling it “very important.”
FTC says consumers lost more than $1 billion to crypto fraud
On June 3, the FTC reported that consumers lost over $1 billion to fraud involving cryptocurrencies from January 2021 through March 2022. The FTC’s recent Consumer Protection Data Spotlight found that cryptocurrency is becoming the payment of choice for many scammers and that most reported cryptocurrency losses involved fake investment opportunities (totaling $575 million in reported losses since January 2021). The spotlight stated that nearly four out of every ten dollars reported lost to a fraud originating on social media was lost in crypto, far more than any other payment method. Following losses related to cryptocurrency schemes, the next largest losses involved romance scams ($185 million) and business and government impersonation scams ($133 million collectively).
DFPI requests comments on oversight of crypto asset-related financial products and services
On June 1, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a request for public comments from stakeholders on developing guidance related to the oversight of crypto asset-related financial products and services. DFPI will proceed with rulemaking under the authority of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). The request is in accordance with an executive order issued by the California governor last month, which called on the state to create a transparent and consistent framework for companies operating in blockchain, cryptocurrency, and related financial technologies. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) DFPI’s request outlines various topics and questions concerning regulatory priorities, CCFPL regulation and supervision, and marketing monitoring functions, but notes that stakeholders “may comment on any potential area for rulemaking relating to crypto asset-related financial products and services,” including under other statutes administered or enforced by DFPI such as the Corporate Securities Law, Escrow Law, California Financing Law, or Money Transmission Act. The deadline to submit comments is August 5.
Brainard discusses central bank digital currency at House hearing
On May 25, Fed Governor Lael Brainard spoke before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee in a virtual hearing titled “Digital Assets and the Future of Finance: Examining the Benefits and Risks of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency.” According to the Committee’s memorandum regarding the hearing, the Fed defines a central bank digital currency (CBDC) as a “digital liability of a central bank that is widely available to the general public,” and though definitions vary, “understanding what distinguishes cryptocurrency from fiat government-issued currency is fundamental.” The memorandum also discussed the Fed’s publication of a discussion paper in January, Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation, which calls for public comments on questions related to the possibility of a U.S. CBDC (covered by InfoBytes here). In Brainard’s prepared statement, she noted that the “rapid ongoing evolution” of digital assets “should lead us to frame the question not as to whether there is a need for a central bank-issued digital dollar today, but rather whether there may be conditions in the future that may give rise to such a need.” Brainard also stated that “there are risks of not acting, just as there are risks of acting.” While there has not been a decision on creating a U.S. CBDC, Brainard stated that “it is important to undertake the necessary work to inform any such decision and to be ready to move forward should the need arise.” Additionally, Brainard pointed to recent pressure on two widely used stablecoins and resulting market turmoil that “underscore the need for clear regulatory guardrails to provide consumer and investor protection, protect financial stability, and ensure a level playing field for competition and innovation across the financial system.” Brainard further stated that a U.S. CBDC could be a potential “way to ensure that people around the world who use the dollar can continue to rely on the strength and safety of the U.S. currency to transact and conduct business in the digital financial system.”
Hsu is self-described “crypto skeptic”
On May 24, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu delivered remarks before the 2022 DC Blockchain Summit focusing on the vulnerabilities in the cryptocurrency framework and recent volatility with stablecoins. In his remarks, Hsu described that he has “been a crypto skeptic,” and that it has become clear to him that the crypto economy depends on “hype” to “generate the interest and investment that are key to creating the ‘flywheel’ of growth that crypto projects seem to need to get off the ground.” In his speech, he discussed his three high level observations surrounding recent events from the perspective of a bank regulator. First, Hsu described “deep vulnerabilities in the crypto system,” noting that “[c]rypto is highly fragmented and prone to hacks,” and that “[c]ontagion risks are real.” He also argued that ownership rights are underdeveloped for the size, scope, and ambitions of the industry, explaining that “[f]or a technology and industry so focused on promoting an ‘ownership society,’ the lack of clarity on ownership rights, modes of ownership, and custody of digital assets seems like a fundamental problem that needs to be solved.” Second, Hsu observed that “recent events have shown the value of the OCC’s ‘careful and cautious’ approach to banks seeking to engage in crypto activities.” Hsu explained that there has been no contagion from cryptocurrencies to traditional banking and finance, stating that “[n]o banks are under stress or even rumored to be under stress due to crypto exposure.” Lastly, he warned “that hype is not harmless.” Hsu noted that a hype-driven economy has challenges for individuals interested in truly productive innovation and in protecting consumers. He recognized the possibility “for positive and transformative change with digital assets,” but warned that “the hype and the associated vulnerabilities noted above make the crypto space very dangerous for investors of modest means.” Hsu stated that while he remains a “a crypto skeptic,” he sees “its potential and understand[s] why there is excitement around it.” He also stated that the agency “will continue to take a careful and cautious approach to crypto in order to ensure that the national banking system is safe, sound, and fair.”
SEC to expand crypto asset and cyber unit team
On May 3, the SEC announced it will nearly double the size of its Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit within the Division of Enforcement. “By nearly doubling the size of this key unit, the SEC will be better equipped to police wrongdoing in the crypto markets while continuing to identify disclosure and controls issues with respect to cybersecurity,” SEC Chair Gary Gensler stated. Since the unit’s inception, more than 80 enforcement actions have been brought against actors related to fraudulent and unregistered crypto asset offerings and platforms, resulting in monetary relief totaling more than $2 billion. The unit has also “brought numerous actions against SEC registrants and public companies for failing to maintain adequate cybersecurity controls and for failing to appropriately disclose cyber-related risks and incidents.” The expanded unit will focus on investigations related to: crypto asset offerings, crypto asset exchanges, crypto asset lending and staking products, decentralized finance platforms, non-fungible tokens, and stablecoins.
Hsu discusses stablecoin standards
On April 27, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu issued a statement regarding stablecoin standards after appearing before the Artificial Intelligence and the Economy: Charting a Path for Responsible and Inclusive AI symposium hosted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, FinRegLab, and the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. According to Hsu, the internet has “technical foundations” that “provide for an open, royalty-free network.” He further noted that “[t]hose foundations did not emerge on their own. They were developed by standard setting bodies like IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) and W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), which had representatives with differing perspectives, a shared public interest ethos, and a strong leader committed to the vision of an open and inclusive internet.” Hsu further stated that stablecoins do not have “shared standards and are not interoperable.” However, to make stablecoins “open and inclusive,” Hsu said that he believed that “a standard setting initiative similar to that undertaken by IETF and W3C needs to be established, with representatives not just from crypto/Web3 firms, but also from academia and government.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, Hsu discussed stablecoin policy considerations earlier this month in remarks before the Institute of International Economic Law at Georgetown University Law Center, calling for the establishment of an “intentional architecture” for stablecoins developed through principles of “[s]tability, interoperability and separability,” as well as “core values” of “privacy, security, and preventing illicit finance.”
DFPI concludes MTA licensure not required for direct purchase and sale of cryptocurrency
Recently, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a new opinion letter covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to the purchase and sale of virtual currency. The redacted opinion letter examines whether a Company that offers customers the opportunities to deposit fiat currency to a Company account and then draw down that balance to purchase virtual currency from the company requires MTA licensure. The Company explained that virtual currency is purchased from a third party and is transferred to the customer’s Company-issued virtual currency wallet where it can then be stored, transferred to an external wallet, or sold for fiat currency. When a customer later wants to sell the purchased virtual currency for fiat currency, the transaction occurs in a similar fashion. The Company stated that “virtual currency sales to customers are from the Company’s own inventory,” and that for purposes of the opinion, DFPI “assumes these sales occur independently of the Company’s own transactions with third parties.”
DFPI concluded that because the Company’s activities are limited to directly purchasing and selling cryptocurrency to customers, it does not require an MTA license because it does “not involve the sale or issuance of stored value or receiving money for transmission.” Specifically, DFPI stated that because the “customer’s fiat currency balance in the Company account does not meet the definition of stored value” and because “funds in that account can only be used for virtual currency purchases from the Company or transferred out to the customer’s external bank account,” the closed loop stored value “does not constitute issuance of stored value that is regulated under the MTA.” DFPI reminded the Company that its determination is limited to the presented facts and that any change could lead to different conclusions.
OCC launches consumer financial health discussion series
On April 22, the OCC announced an upcoming quarterly discussion series focusing on consumer financial wellbeing. The first event in the Financial Health: Vital Signs series will occur on April 28 and focus on minority ownership of cryptocurrency. Future events will feature discussions with acting OCC Comptroller Michael J. Hsu and other academic, community, and industry leaders. The discussion series will be livestreamed and open to the public.