Skip to main content
Menu Icon 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.

  • Special Alert: OFAC formalizes expectations for sanctions compliance programs

    Financial Crimes

    Buckley Special Alert

    The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control last week issued a framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments, which, for the first time, outlines OFAC’s views on essential elements of a risk-based sanctions compliance program in a single document that can serve as a roadmap for organizations as they structure and evaluate these programs. The framework should be considered carefully by U.S. organizations with any significant foreign dealings, and foreign organizations that conduct business with the United States or that utilize U.S. goods, services, or financial systems.

    The framework also makes clear that OFAC intends to target individual employees who are culpable for violations. That emphasis follows an action from earlier this year, where OFAC sanctioned an individual it deemed responsible for circumventing his employer’s compliance protocols.

    * * *

    Click here to read the full special alert.

    If you have questions about the OFAC’s new guidance or related issues, please visit our Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering & Sanctions practice page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Financial Crimes Department of Treasury OFAC Sanctions Compliance Special Alerts

    Share page with AddThis
  • Buckley Special Alert: DOJ issues updated guidance for corporate compliance programs

    Federal Issues

    On April 30, 2019, the Department of Justice Criminal Division released updated guidance on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (the “Guidance”). The Guidance sets forth the non-binding factors that DOJ prosecutors utilize to evaluate a company’s compliance program and consequently determine the “(1) form of any resolution or prosecution; (2) monetary penalty, if any; and (3) compliance obligations contained in any corporate criminal resolution (e.g., monitorship or reporting obligation.” The Guidance is, therefore, significant to companies seeking to understand what the DOJ considers to be best practices for compliance programs, as well as to mitigate against criminal penalties resulting from potential wrongdoing.

    The Guidance builds upon a prior version released in February 2017 and does not indicate any major policy changes. Instead, this update provides further explanation of the factors DOJ uses to evaluate companies’ compliance programs and contextualize those factors within the enforcement framework of the Justice Manual and Sentencing Guidelines.

    * * *

    Click here to read the full special alert.

    If you have questions about the DOJ’s new guidance or other related issues, please visit our White Collar practice page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Federal Issues DOJ Corporate Compliance Program Special Alerts

    Share page with AddThis
  • Buckley Special Alert: DOJ announces new policy on pursuing individuals in corporate resolutions

    Financial Crimes

    U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said at a conference this morning that the U.S. Department of Justice has revised its guidelines relating to corporate resolutions with the DOJ, particularly as those guidelines relate to charging culpable individuals. The revised guidelines modify the 2015 Yates Memo, and affirmatively obligate companies seeking leniency from the DOJ to investigate and furnish information about culpable employees and agents substantially involved in wrongdoing.

    Corporations now will receive cooperation credit in criminal resolutions only if all employees substantially involved in the alleged wrongdoing are identified to the government. And in civil resolutions, corporations will receive cooperation credit only if the corporation reveals the involvement of senior management and board members in the alleged wrongdoing. The new policy highlights the DOJ’s ongoing focus on criminal and civil enforcement actions against individuals and emphasizes the importance of giving serious consideration to obtaining individual counsel very early in the process of an investigation.

    * * *

    Click here to read the full special alert.

    If you have questions about the DOJ’s new policy or other related issues, please visit our White Collar practice page or contact one of Buckley Sandler’s 15 partners in that practice.

    Financial Crimes DOJ FCPA Special Alerts

    Share page with AddThis
  • Buckley Sandler Special Alert: Weathering the coming tide of congressional investigations

    Federal Issues

    The results are in: Party control of the U.S. House of Representatives will change for the third time in 12 years, leaving legions of pundits to speculate about what happens next. Prospects for a fundamental change in the way Congress and Washington operate are dim, particularly given that the U.S. Senate remains under Republican control. With new legislation most likely dead on arrival due to the political stalemate on Capitol Hill, the Democrats’ most reliable opportunity to exert their will is almost certainly through congressional oversight and investigations. The last time the Democrats controlled the House during a Republican presidency, following the 2006 midterms, Rep. Henry Waxman remarked that Congress’s oversight powers are “just as important, if not more important than legislation.”

    While it is tempting to dismiss congressional oversight, and the attendant theatrical hearings and testimony as nothing but sound and fury, the reality for companies, executives, and others under the microscope is far less anodyne. Lack of preparation and ill-conceived strategy in responding to congressional investigations heightens the prospect of reputational harm that, unchecked, will frustrate business goals, damage shareholders, and derail — or end — careers.

    * * *

    Click here to read the full special alert.

    Please join us for a Dec. 5 webcast that will delve deeper into these topics and offer some thoughts on navigating the coming tide of congressional investigations. If you have questions about congressional investigations or other related issues, please visit our Congressional Investigations practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Federal Issues Special Alerts U.S. House U.S. Senate

    Share page with AddThis
  • Buckley Special Alert: California governor signs significant data privacy bill into law

    Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security

    On June 28, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “Consumer Privacy Act” or the “Act”) into law. The Act was enacted largely in response to a more restrictive ballot initiative (“Ballot Initiative”) that appeared to have gained a sufficient number of signatures to appear on the November 2018 ballot in the state. Both the Act and the Ballot Initiative were a reaction to high-profile news stories involving large-scale consumer data collection and sharing by online companies, often done without notice to or consent from consumers.

    The Ballot Initiative, driven and funded by a coalition of privacy advocates, proposed both expanding consumer privacy rights under existing state laws such as the California Online Privacy Protection Act and the “Shine the Light” law, and giving new consumer rights with regard to information sharing. The Ballot Initiative, which was withdrawn in response to the enactment of the Act, would have provided state residents with increased rights regarding the types of information online companies possess about them, the purposes for which the information is used, and the entities with which the information is shared. Consumers would also have been given the right to stop certain sharing of their personal information. Critics asserted that the Ballot Initiative was poorly crafted and would stifle innovation in data services. Last minute revisions to the language of the Act, which generally follows the requirements of the Ballot Initiative, sought to address some of these concerns and several industry groups that had opposed the Ballot Initiative did not lobby against the quick passage of the Act.

     

    * * *

    Click here to read the full special alert.

    If you have questions about the act or other related issues, please visit our Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security practice page, or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security State Issues Special Alerts CCPA

    Share page with AddThis
  • Buckley Sandler Special Alert: D.C. Circuit significantly narrows FCC’s order defining autodialer

    Courts

    On March 16, the D.C. Circuit issued its much anticipated ruling in ACA International v. FCC. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling significantly narrows a Federal Communication Commission order from 2015, which, among other things, had broadly defined an “autodialer” for purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

    * * *

    Click here to read the full special alert.

    If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, please visit our Class Actions practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Courts FCC Appellate D.C. Circuit TCPA Special Alerts Autodialer ACA International

    Share page with AddThis
  • Buckley Sandler Special Alert: Mulvaney says the CFPB will depend heavily on state Attorneys General for enforcement of consumer protection laws

    Federal Issues

    Buckley Sandler Special Alert

    Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in a February 28 speech, outlined the Bureau’s overall direction and strategic priorities, and described plans to coordinate with state Attorneys General in enforcing federal consumer financial protection law. Mulvaney made the remarks in Washington, D.C., at the winter meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG).

    * * *

    Click here to read the full special alert.

     

    If you have questions about the remarks or other related issues, please visit our State Attorneys General and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice pages, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Federal Issues CFPB Succession State Attorney General Enforcement Special Alerts

    Share page with AddThis
  • Buckley Sandler Special Alert: Supreme Court limits definition of “whistleblower” in potentially hollow victory for public companies

    Courts

    Buckley Sandler Special Alert

    On February 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, a long-anticipated case that clarifies who is protected as a “whistleblower” under the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provisions. In a unanimous decision penned by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the Dodd-Frank Act protects an individual only if he or she has reported a securities law violation to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC)—internal reports are not sufficient.

     

    * * *

    Click here to read the full special alert.

     

    If you have questions about the decision or other related issues, please visit our Whistleblower practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Courts U.S. Supreme Court Whistleblower Special Alerts SEC Dodd-Frank

    Share page with AddThis
  • Special Alert: Treasury Issues Report Encouraging Sweeping Reforms to Regulation of Consumer Financial Products and Services

    Federal Issues

    On June 12, the Treasury Department issued the first of four reports to the president detailing its review of financial regulation in the United States and making recommendations to reform federal regulatory oversight of depository institutions. For depository (and nondepository) institutions offering consumer financial products and services, the report sets forth a series of recommendations to reform the supervision and enforcement practices of federal financial regulators, and in particular the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The report also details a number of recommended reforms to regulations governing mortgage lending and servicing and indicates that the Treasury Secretary is particularly interested in modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

    The report makes clear that the Treasury Department supports substantial structural reforms at the CFPB, many of which complement concepts included in the Financial CHOICE Act, which passed the House on June 8. The Treasury Department is particularly interested in reducing the autonomy of the CFPB by making the CFPB Director removable at will by the president or converting the CFPB to a commission, as well as by subjecting the CFPB’s budget to Congressional appropriations. The Treasury Department also proposes eliminating the CFPB’s supervisory authority, and would return that authority to the federal prudential regulators for depository institutions and to state regulators for other financial institutions, as applicable. The report also contains a number of recommendations to amend the CFPB’s enforcement authority, which are aimed at giving regulated institutions better advance notice of regulatory expectations and stronger procedural rights when responding to CFPB investigations. The proposed CFPB reforms come within a broader set of recommended reforms to the entire federal financial oversight structure designed to ensure consistency and fairness across regulators.

    ***
    Click here to read full special alert.

    If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice page for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Federal Issues Financial CHOICE Act Special Alerts Consumer Finance CRA Department of Treasury

    Share page with AddThis
  • Special Alert: Supreme Court Holds that a Person May Collect Defaulted Debts Purchased for Its Own Account Without Triggering the FDCPA

    Courts

    On June 12, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., affirming the Fourth Circuit’s holding that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s (“FDCPA” or the “Act”) definition of the term “debt collector” does not necessarily apply to a company collecting debts in default that it purchased for its own account.

    The Henson Case
    The FDCPA defines the term “debt collector” as those who regularly seek to collect debts “owed…another.” Like the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court reasoned that the FDCPA’s definition focuses attention on “third party collection agents working for a debt owner — not on a debt owner seeking to collect debts for itself” and thus, in the context of the facts presented, the purchaser of the debts at issue did not qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

    ***
    Click here to read full special alert.

    If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, visit our Debt Collection & Buying practice page for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Courts Special Alerts FDCPA Debt Collection

    Share page with AddThis

Pages

Upcoming Events