Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • US Court Rejects DocuSign e-Signatures as Method to Provide Digital Authorization

    Courts

    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” signatureIn 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.

    Courts Digital Commerce ESIGN Electronic Signatures Sanctions Payments UST

  • Implementation of New EU Regulation Establishes Uniform Legal Framework for e-Signatures Across All EU Member States

    Fintech

    Recently, the EU adopted a new EU Electronic Signature Regulation 910/2014/EU, which established a new, comprehensive, legal framework for e-signatures, as well as e-identification, e-seals, e-timestamp, e-documents, e-delivery services, and website authentication. The new regulation applies to transactions dating back to July 1, replacing the prior Directive on Electronic Signatures (1999/93/EC). Among other things, the new regulation defines three levels of e-Signatures: (i) e-Signature, (ii) advanced e-Signature, and (iii) qualified e-Signature. “E-Signature” is defined as data in electronic form which are attached to, or logically associated with, other electronic data, which are used by the signatory to sign. “Advanced electronic signature” is defined as uniquely linked to the signatory, capable of identifying the signatory, and created using e-signature creation data that the signatory can, with a high level of confidence, use under his sole control. And finally, a “qualified electronic signature” is defined as an advanced electronic signature created by a qualified electronic signature creation device.

    Notably, and in contrast to previous EU directives on e-signatures, the new regulation is directly applicable in all 28 EU Member States without any requirement that it be formally adopted into national law. Specifically, Article 25 of the New Regulation provides that an electronic signature shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements for qualified electronic signatures. Rather, a qualified electronic signature in one EU Member State shall now be recognized as a qualified electronic signature in all other Member States.

    Digital Commerce International Electronic Signatures European Union Miscellany

  • OCC to Consider Fintech Charter Applications; Seeks Comment

    Federal Issues

    On December 2, the OCC announced that it would move forward with considering applications from financial technology (Fintech) companies to become special-purpose national banks. In prepared remarks delivered at the Georgetown University Law Center, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry explained, among other things, that “having a clear process, criteria, and standards for Fintechs to become national banks ensures regulators and companies openly vet risks and that the institutions that receive charters have a reasonable chance of success.”

    Accompanying his decision, the OCC published a paper discussing the issues and conditions that the agency will consider in granting special purpose national bank charters. According to the paper, in order to apply for a special-purpose charter, a company must engage in fiduciary activities, or one of the three core banking functions: lending money, paying checks or receiving deposits. The paper is available on the agency’s website at www.occ.gov and comments may be submitted through January 15, 2017.

    Federal Issues Digital Commerce OCC Fintech Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

  • Illinois Regulator Seeks Comment on Proposed "Digital Currency Regulatory Guidance"

    State Issues

    The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) is requesting comment on its proposed “Digital Currency Regulatory Guidance” on decentralized digital currencies—including Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, and Zcash. The proposed guidance seeks to establish the regulatory treatment of decentralized digital currencies under existing definitions of money transmission in Illinois, as defined in the Illinois Transmitters of Money Act (205 ILCS 657) (TOMA). Currently, digital currencies do not fit the statutory definitions of “money” and, therefore, do not independently trigger the licensing requirements of TOMA. However, some business activities involving decentralized digital currency that involve the receipt of “money” can trigger the licensing requirements of TOMA. Comments must be received by January 18, 2017 at 6:00pm EST and may be submitted by clicking here.

    State Issues Digital Commerce Virtual Currency Bitcoin

  • SEC Hosts First Financial Technology (FinTech) Forum

    Federal Issues

    On November 14, the SEC hosted its first Fintech Public Forum at its Washington, DC headquarters to discuss FinTech and to evaluate how the current regulatory environment can most effectively address innovation in the financial services industry. The event was divided into four panels, which covered the following topic areas: (i) the impact of recent innovation in investment advisory services; (ii) the impact of recent innovation on trading, settlement, and clearance activities; (iii) the impact of recent innovation in capital formation; and (iv) investor protection in the FinTech era. The forum was open to the public and is also available on the SEC’s website.

    SEC Chair Mary Jo White opened the forum with introductory remarks. After explaining that “Fintech innovations have the potential to transform key parts of the securities industry,” Chair White highlighted several developments that are particularly important to the SEC, including: (i) automated investing advice; (ii) distributed ledger technology; and (iii) online marketplace lenders and crowdfunding portals. In describing the SEC’s role with respect to such innovations, Chair White noted that the Commission “must ensure new developments are not rushed to market or implemented in a way that facilitates a risk of fraud or harm to investors.” Ms. White explained that she had “directed the creation of a Fintech working group at the SEC earlier this year . . . to evaluate the emerging technologies,” and tasked the group to provide “specific, tailored recommendations . . . about what the SEC should do to provide clarity on existing regulatory requirements and help foster responsible innovation.” Chair White also clarified that the SEC was at an early stage in its outreach to investors, innovators and other stakeholders in new technologies, with the forum being an important part of SEC’s outreach.

    SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar, who championed the idea of the Commission hosting a Fintech public forum, also spoke to attendees. “I believe the commission should take the lead regulatory role in the Fintech space,” Piwowar said in prepared remarks. “Many of the firms pursuing Fintech are already SEC registrants, and others are providing services that are squarely within the commission’s oversight, such as investment advice and trading and settlement functionalities.” Piwowar emphasized the need for clarity in the sector, but added that the SEC is “uniquely situated to determine whether and how Fintech currently fits, and ultimately should fit, within a financial regulatory structure.”

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance Digital Commerce SEC Financial Technology Fintech Virtual Currency Distributed Ledger

  • IG Report Concludes that IRS Lacks Compliance Strategy For Virtual Currencies

    Fintech

    On November 8, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released a report evaluating the IRS’s strategy for addressing income produced via virtual currencies. The report which was completed on Sept. 21, but released Tuesday, observed that none of the agency’s divisions have yet developed any type of compliance initiatives or guidelines for conducting examinations or investigations specific to tax noncompliance related to virtual currencies. Accordingly, the TIGTA recommended that the IRS develop a comprehensive strategy for virtual currencies such as Bitcoin to help ensure compliance with tax law. The report also recommended that the IRS provide updated guidance to reflect the necessary documentation requirements and tax treatments necessary for the various uses of virtual currency and that the agency revise third-party reporting documents so that they identify how much virtual currency was used in taxable transactions. The IRS agreed with each of these three recommendations.

    Digital Commerce IRS Compliance Department of Treasury Virtual Currency Miscellany

  • Comptroller Curry Announces OCC Will Issue a Paper Soon Describing OCC's Thoughts on National FinTech Charters

    Federal Issues

    In prepared remarks delivered November 3 at the Chatham House “City Series” Conference in London, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry discussed the OCC’s approach to regulating FinTech innovation. In his speech, entitled “The Banking Revolution: Innovation, Regulation and Consumer Choice,” Mr. Curry discussed the rapid growth of worldwide investment in FinTech over the past five years and walked through various regulatory responses to those developments–including the OCC’s guiding principles for its regulatory approach to innovation and its decision to establish a team dedicated to implementing those principles. The Comptroller emphasized that the OCC is still deciding whether to grant national charters to FinTech companies that conduct banking activities, but added that the agency would issue a paper “soon” describing the agency’s thoughts on the subject and inviting public comment.

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance Digital Commerce OCC Fintech Virtual Currency

  • Community Groups Submit Letter to OCC on Potential FinTech Charter

    Consumer Finance

    On October 25, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and community groups across the country sent a letter to the OCC explaining that they strongly oppose the consideration of a limited-purpose fintech charter by the bank regulator. The groups explained that they would consider supporting the limited-purpose chartering of a fintech firm "only if the OCC does not preempt strong state law and establishes vigorous supervision and regulation for the newly chartered institutions." Additionally, the groups want chartered fintech firms to be subject to "rigorous Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)-like obligations" and "stringent" safety and soundness reviews. The letter argues that “new charter and receivership authority for uninsured institutions, primarily financial technology companies (fintechs), has the potential to benefit consumers and communities,” but only if accompanied by CRA-like obligations, and supervision and examination to ensure compliance with both fair lending and consumer protection laws.

    Consumer Finance Digital Commerce OCC CRA Miscellany Fintech

  • Special Alert: Summary of CFPB's final prepaid rule

    Consumer Finance

    I. Overview of the CFPB's Final Prepaid Rule

    On October 5, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) issued a final rule (Prepaid Rule) amending Regulations E and Z to extend consumer protections to prepaid card accounts. The new protections include pre-acquisition disclosures, error resolution rights, and periodic statements. In addition, prepaid card accounts that include a separate credit feature are subject to some of Regulation Z’s credit card provisions, including an ability-to-repay requirement. Prepaid card issuers are also required to submit to the Bureau and to post to their websites any new and revised prepaid card account agreements. In this alert we summarize key provisions of the Prepaid Rule except those provisions that apply only to payroll and government benefits prepaid cards, which will be covered in a separate alert.

    II. Effective Date

    The Prepaid Rule’s effective date is October 1, 2017, however, the effective date for posting prepaid card account agreements is October 1, 2018. Heeding concerns about burden, the Bureau stated that the Prepaid Rule does not require financial institutions to pull and replace prepaid account access devices or packaging materials that were manufactured, printed, or otherwise produced in the normal course of business prior to October 1, 2017. Instead, financial institutions must provide consumers with notice of certain changes in terms and updated initial disclosures, in certain circumstances.

     

    Click here to read full Special Alert

     

    * * *

    Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Digital Commerce Prepaid Cards Special Alerts Payments Regulation Z Ability To Repay

  • FDIC Releases Report on the Unbanked; Captures Movement to Online Banking

    Federal Issues

    On October 20, the FDIC released a report on the use of the traditional banking system in the United States. According to the FDIC’s executive summary of the report, the percentage of U.S. households in which no one had a checking or savings account (the “unbanked”) dropped to 7.0 in 2015. This is the lowest unbanked percentage since 2009, the year the FDIC began conducting an annual survey of unbanked and underbanked households. The FDIC cited several reasons why some households remain unbanked, the most common of which was the cost of maintaining an account, with an estimated 57.4% of respondents citing it as a factor in their decision not to maintain an account, and 37.8% of respondents citing it as the main reason underlying their decision not to maintain an account. Consistent with past survey results, the report notes that unbanked and underbanked rates are higher among lower-income households, less-educated households, younger households, minority households, and working-age disabled households. Additional findings highlighted in the report include: (i) a 1.9% increase from 2013-2015 in the use of prepaid cards; (ii) rapid growth (31.9% of users in 2015 compared to 23.2% in 2013) in the use of mobile and online banking, reflecting “promising opportunities to use the mobile platform to increase economic inclusion”; and (iii) an opportunity for banks to meet the credit needs of some households with an “unmet demand” for credit by “promoting the importance of building credit history, incorporating nontraditional data into underwriting, and increasing households’ awareness of personal credit products.”

    Federal Issues FDIC Banking Digital Commerce Prepaid Cards Mobile Banking Payments Online Banking

Pages

Upcoming Events