Category: finance

Bank Strategy Briefing: Moving Away From Common Bank Names

It is difficult to overstate the importance of a bank’s name. After all, it’s the centerpiece of a bank’s long-term branding strategy. Before reaching the teller line or setting up a meeting with a banker, seeing a bank’s name on a branch sign, billboard or website is likely the first interaction a customer has with the institution.  With many Midwest institutions approaching or surpassing 100-year anniversaries, a bank’s name may reflect generations of service to a community or the ownership family’s legacy.

Many banks share common names

A surprisingly large number of banks in the U.S. share common naming elements, as detailed below:

tableforweb[2].png

While many reasons for this degree of commonality exist, community pride and company history among them, similar names can result in market confusion, or worse, trademark disputes.

To differentiate themselves, a number of banks have begun changing names. In some instances, it’s a legal name change as specified in the institution’s articles, while in others it’s adopting a trade name.

How to change a bank’s legal name

The process for changing a legal name is relatively simple. First, a thorough search must be conducted to ensure the new name is available. This search would identify existing bank trademarks for the name as well as other potential uses that could cause marketplace confusion. Then comes amending the bank’s articles of incorporation. This requires board and shareholder approval. Once the amendment is effective, customer-facing marketing materials and legal documentation will need to reflect the new legal name.

How to adopt a trade name

Trade names are more nuanced and compliance-sensitive. In addition to validating that a name is available for use, various banking agencies require disclosures about the trade name to appear in signage, advertising and account-opening documentation. This helps customers understand that accounts under each name will be aggregated when calculating FDIC insurance coverage. For example, the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institution’s (WDFI’s) guidance requires disclosure that trade names be identified as a “branch” of the bank. WDFI does not permit other descriptors like “division” or “unit.”

Name changes create new marketing opportunities

Beyond the legal and logistical aspects of a name change, it’s important to develop a robust marketing plan to maximize the opportunity a name change creates. Consider ways to reintroduce the bank to the marketplace and retell its story to the community.

Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Mitigating Payment Fraud Risks

For businesses that thrive on person-to-person transactions, cash is quickly being replaced by cards, as well as tap-to-pay systems, mobile wallets and QR-based payment systems. These technologies will continue to dominate the market in the near future, but the long-term future of the payment card industry will likely be shaped by the impact of blockchain and artificial intelligence. These developments will eventually also impact risk management, marketing and financial planning, as they present opportunities for serious risks, including fraud. Hence, it is imperative for risk management professionals to plan for these short- and long-term changes in the industry.

Strong risk monitoring requires proactively assessing threats and planning mitigation measures to minimize risk impact on the company or organization. To help mitigate payment fraud risks, businesses can take the following steps:

Train your Employees Regularly

The more regularly you train your employees, the more likely are they to spot suspicious behavior, no matter what payment technology the business uses. Repeated and regular trainings are essential because employees tend to forget what they have learned with time. These training workshops should teach the workers to never accept damaged cards from customers, confirm customer identities, and never enter a card number manually.

Use Contactless and EMV-Enabled Terminals

As payment technology changes, businesses must evaluate what options are safest and least prone to fraud. Currently, businesses should use EMV (short for Europay, Mastercard and Visa), which involves chips embedded into payment cards—a significant step in making transactions safer. The introduction and adoption of EMV-enabled secure terminals, particularly when using PIN and EMV security together, has helped merchants and customers prevent fraudulent transactions.

Contactless smartcards such as chip and magnetic stripe cards use contactless payment, which can present another secure way to process transactions. Most EMV terminals are also enabled with contactless payment. At such terminals, a fast and secure transaction is possible using Near Field Communication (NFC) or Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) via smartcard or smartphone. If a merchant chooses to use contactless payment without PIN, they can put a limit to the amount spent on each contactless transaction to further minimize risk.

Beware Uncommon Transactions

Transactions that involve unusually large purchases could be a sign of potential fraud. Businesses should examine such transactions closely and confirm the identity of the customer. Similarly, if several purchases are made with a card in a short timeframe, it could indicate that the card was stolen and being used by someone other than the owner.

Maintain Online Security

As merchants and consumers shift to contactless and EMV-enabled point of sale terminals, risk has shifted towards online transactions. To mitigate this risk, it is important for online businesses to use the Address Verification Service (AVS), which verifies that the billing information matches the one registered with the card issuer. Vendors should also ask for Card Verification Value 2 (CVV2) to verify that the user has the card in hand when placing the order. Another important check is to put a limit on an IP address for the number of cards it can use for online transactions.

Prevent Employee Fraud

Employee fraud is always a major concern for risk management professionals.  Businesses should remember to keep an eye on credit card activity, particularly returns, as employee theft often shows up in fake discounts or returns. Companies should create alerts that set limits on returns at stores and notify management any time those limits are exceeded.

 

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2020 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

National Security vs. Investment: Are we striking the right balance?

The U.S. Treasury Department’s final regulations, giving it more power to scrutinize any national security risks that may arise from deals between U.S. and foreign companies, are scheduled to go into effect this week, Feb. 13, 2020.

CFIUS New Regulations

The regs implement the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) and provide the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) broader authority over certain investments and real estate transactions. Critics say the regs will change cross-border M&A deal-making for years to come, and advance increasingly protectionist U.S. policy.

Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said the regs will strengthen national security and “modernize the investment review process,” while maintaining “our nation’s open investment policy by encouraging investment in American businesses and workers, and by providing clarity and certainty regarding the types of transactions that are covered.”

We have previously described in the MoginRubin Blog how not everyone shares the Treasury Secretary’s respect for CFIUS.

Financial writer and author Robert Teitelman described it in an article for Barron’s as “a creature from the shadows of the administrative state” that “defines obscurity in the federal government.” He said it “encourages the very practices the administration condemns in China.” Hernan Cristerna, co-head of global mergers and acquisitions at JPMorgan Chase, told the New York Times that CFIUS is the “No. 1 weapon in the Trump administration’s protectionist arsenal” and called it “the ultimate regulatory bazooka.”

Enacted in August 2018, FIRRMA gives CFIUS much greater reach into deals where national security is a potential issue. Specifically, the law extends CFIUS’s jurisdiction over “certain non-controlling investments into U.S. businesses involved in critical technology, critical infrastructure, or sensitive personal data. Big data, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and biotechnology are among the specific technologies the law was designed to protect. It also establishes CFIUS’s jurisdiction over real estate deals.

The regulations limit CFIUS’s application of its expanded jurisdiction to “certain categories of foreign persons,” and has “initially” designated a handful of countries as “excepted foreign states.” They are Australia, Canada, and the U.K., countries with which the U.S. has “robust intelligence sharing and defense industrial base integration mechanisms.” The list may be expanded in the future, according to the regs.

‘Controlling interest’ redefined.

Attorneys, in-house counsel and other professionals deeply involved in cross-border transactions are already experiencing some nuts and bolts changes that other professionals want to be aware of.

For example, deals that would give foreign companies “controlling interest” are no longer the only deals the committee will examine; it is now interested in deals that would transfer non-controlling but “substantial interest” when critical technologies, critical infrastructure, or the private data of U.S. citizens are involved. Deals that fall into these categories now require filing; previously they were optional. Deals that would once have sailed through scrutiny may now be delayed by investigations. CFIUS also has more time to review transactions. The initial stage ends within 45 days and the second phase can last from 45 to 60 days. Filing fees are set but cannot be more than 1% of the value of the transaction or $300,000, whichever figure is lower. And, of course, there is increased risk that they be ultimately be blocked.

The regs include a new definition of “principal place of business” as the “primary location where an entity’s management directs, controls, or coordinates the entity’s activities, or, in the case of an investment fund, where the fund’s activities and investments are primarily directed, controlled, or coordinated by or on behalf of the general partner, managing member, or equivalent.” If the entity is determined to be in the U.S. and has represented in its most recent submission or filing to a U.S. or foreign government that if either its principal place of business, principal office and place of business, address of principal executive offices, address of headquarters, or equivalent, is outside the U.S. then that location is deemed the entity’s principal place of business unless it can prove that the location has changed since the filing.

These new regulations will impact many purely private cross-border transactions, especially in the areas of critical infrastructure, sensitive personal data, and real estate.

Early consideration important.

M&A counsel must now consider CFIUS implications early-on, not only to avoid delay and frustration, but to account for CFIUS clearance in deal timing and closing deadlines. Fines may be levied if CFIUS notices are not timely filed.

Fund managers who make large investments in U.S. companies can also expect to be asked to represent in deal documents that their funds or investors do not require a mandatory CFIUS filing.

For more background and additional insights, please read our previous post, CFIUS: A Guardian of National Security or a Protectionist Tool? Also, you can download the regulations from the MoginRubin website:  Part-800-Final-Rule-Jan-17-2020  & Part-802-Final-Rule-Jan-17-2020

© MoginRubin LLP

ARTICLE BY Dan Mogin and  Jennifer M. Oliver of MoginRubin.
For more on CFIUS regulations, see the National Law Review Global Law section.

What Constitutes “Reasonable” Compensation For Private Foundation Insiders?

Private foundations are created as independent legal entities for solely charitable purposes, and many are run by unpaid family members and other volunteers. But what happens when a private foundation wishes to pay officers, directors or trustees, who are also family members of the individual funding, the foundation?

Because private foundations are “private” as opposed to public charities, there are strict rules around paying family members. Specifically, Section 4941 of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits any financial transaction between a private foundation and a “disqualified person” or an “insider,”[i] – generally the donor and the donor’s family – as it may constitute “self-dealing,” which is deemed a misuse of charitable assets. Family compensation would seem to fall directly under this restriction. However, there is one notable exception to this rule: compensation paid for “personal services” to carry out foundation affairs is permissible, provided that the services rendered are “reasonable and necessary” to carry out the exempt purposes of the foundation, and the compensation is “not excessive.” What constitutes “reasonable” and “not excessive” compensation may vary widely, depending on underlying facts and circumstances.

The services provided to the foundation must be “necessary” for the foundation to carry out its tax-exempt purpose and “personal” in nature. Although the IRS has not specifically defined “personal services,” the regulations cite examples such as investment management, legal and banking services. And, they include professional and managerial services rendered by an insider in his or her capacity as an officer, director, trustee or executive director of the foundation.

The services provided to the foundation must also be “reasonable.” Public charities can more easily determine whether compensation paid to an insider is “reasonable” because there are specific IRS regulations that define unreasonable compensation for public charities called “excess benefit transactions.” Private foundations, however, do not have clear-cut guidelines but will often defer to the regulations that public charities follow. The standards set forth in the regulations require that compensation should be what “would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances.” This depends on the individual’s job title and description, the skill or knowledge required to perform the duties, the amount of time needed to fulfill the functions required, and the salaries paid for comparable positions. In practice, many foundations compare their proposed compensation amounts to what other for-profit and non-profit companies and organizations pay to similarly qualified individuals with comparable levels of responsibility.

Some factors to be considered:

(i) the size of the organization;

(ii) the employment history of the candidate and any special qualifications (e.g., licenses and certifications);

(iii) the geographic location of the foundation (some regional markets pay more than others);

(iv) the specific job responsibilities and duties;

(v) the time commitment; and

(vi) the total value of the compensation package, including benefits.

It is highly recommended that the compensation of foundation insiders meet the following requirements:

(i) the compensation is approved in advance by an authorized body of disinterested individuals such as the independent board members;

(ii) the authorized body obtains appropriate comparable data prior to making its determination as to reasonableness; and

(iii) the authorized body concurrently makes its determination and adequately documents the basis for that determination, all without the participation of the individuals whose compensation is being set.

Conflicts of interest frequently arise when setting compensation or benefits for officers, directors or trustees of private foundations. As such, the IRS requires that private foundations adopt a conflict of interest policy to help ensure that when actual or potential conflicts of interest arise, the organization has a process in place to resolve the conflict and assure that the affected individual will advise the governing body about all of the relevant facts concerning the situation. A conflict of interest policy is also intended to establish procedures under which individuals who have a conflict will be excused from voting on such matters.

States also have rules around conflicts of interest. In New York, a conflict of interest policy for private foundations became mandatory after the passage of the New York Non-Profit Revitalization Act of 2013.[ii]

A private foundation’s conflict of interest policy, among other things, must include the following:

(i) a definition of the circumstances that constitute a conflict of interest;

(ii) procedures for disclosing a conflict to the board;

(iii) a requirement that the person with the conflict not be present to vote on matters giving rise to such conflict;

(iv) a requirement that existence and resolution of a conflict be properly documented;

(v) procedures for disclosing, addressing and documenting related party transaction; and

(vi) a requirement that each officer, director and key employee submit to the secretary of the foundation prior to initial election of the board, and annually thereafter, a written statement identifying possible conflicts of interest.

The penalties for disregarding the compensation rules are severe. If foundation insiders fail to meet the “personal services” and “reasonable and necessary” requirements, the foundation will be subject to substantial fines. The foundation is assessed a penalty equal to 20% of the portion of compensation that is considered unreasonable. And each foundation manager who agrees to pay the unreasonable compensation could be personally liable for a penalty equal to 5% of the unreasonable compensation. On top of these penalties, the violation must be corrected, which could require returning the portion of the compensation deemed unreasonable to the foundation, along with interest. If all of this is not corrected in a timely manner, the IRS may impose additional taxes on the foundation, currently 100% of the amount of the unreasonable compensation. Similarly, an additional tax of 50% may be imposed on any foundation manager who refuses to correct the violation.

The good news is that a private foundation may pay its insiders for their foundation work as long as it follows the rules and takes all necessary steps to remain in compliance.

[i] A “disqualified person” or “insider” is any of the following: (1) foundation managers (officers, directors, trustees or persons with similar powers); (2) substantial contributors and individuals or entities with a 20% or greater interest in an entity that is a substantial contributor; (3) the family members of all such individuals; (4) certain entities partially or wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by disqualified persons; and (5) certain government officials.

[ii] The Non-Profit Revitalization Act of 2013 was signed into law by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo on December 18, 2013, and became effective on July 1, 2014.

© 1998-2020 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more information, see the National Law Review Financial Law section.

SEC Proposes Changes to Market Data Plans

On January 8, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a proposed order to improve the governance of National Market System (NMS) data plans that produce consolidated equity market data and disseminate trade and quote data. Currently, the equities exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (the Participants) together collect, consolidate and disseminate information regarding trades and quotes in NMS stocks pursuant to three separate national market system plans. According to the press release, “the current governance structure of these plans perpetuates disincentives to enhance consolidated equity market data feeds, which are often slower and contain less information than the proprietary market data feeds offered by the participants that control much of the voting power for the NMS plans.” The proposed order would direct the Participants to create a single equity data plan that would address these conflicts of interests between the exchanges’ commercial interests and their regulatory obligations to produce and provide consolidated market data.

The SEC also published for comment amendments to the existing NMS data plans to require mandatory disclosure policies with respect to conflicts of interest and to institute a confidentiality policy for certain data and information. Comments on the proposals must be submitted on or before 45 days from publication in the Federal Register.

The SEC’s press release regarding the proposed order is available here. The proposed order is available here.

©2020 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

More SEC regulation updates via the National Law Review SEC & Securities law page.

Five Suggestions for Elder Care If You or Your Elderly Parents Have “One Foot on the Banana Peel”

Shana and I recently had a new client, “Jane,” that came to see us because she was concerned about her elderly parents. Both are in their 90s and although they are still living independently, she is noticing both a physical and cognitive decline in both.  She described them as having “one foot on the banana peel,” recognizing that they are one fall or illness away from no longer being able to maintain their current lifestyle.

As with many of our clients, they are resistant to making any changes and she is worried about what will happen. Jane lives a distance from her parents, works full time, and has her own teenage children. She came to us for assistance in understanding what she can do to help them. Here are five suggestions we made for her:

1. Changes to Powers of Attorney and Health Care Proxy

Jane’s parents’ existing legal documents have each other as primary agents and neither is able to act in that capacity. Jane is handling their bill paying and taking them to MD appointments and it will be easier for her to continue this role with the appropriate legal documents naming her as the primary agent.

2. Financial Planning

Jane’s parents have limited liquid assets and own their home. Their monthly income does not cover their expenses, so they are drawing from those assets every month. This plan will not work long term if either needs to hire a caregiver to help them at home due to the high cost. We helped Jane to understand the realities of paying for care and the limited coverage of Medicare. We also explained the criteria for Medicaid eligibility, the application process and the problem with using Medicaid to pay for home care. We stressed the importance of Jane and her parents exploring alternative living situations that may better meet their needs while they still had funds and ensuring that they found a facility that would allow them to spend down to Medicaid when their funds are exhausted.

3. Home Evaluation

Jane’s parents live in a bi-level home with stairs to enter and Jane is very concerned about their safety. We recommended a home evaluation to determine what modifications can be done to the home to make it safer. These modifications can be simple such as a tub bench, so they don’t have to step over the tub to get into the shower or more complex such as a stairlift or emergency alert system.

4. Medication Management

Jane’s parents have multiple medical conditions and each takes many medications. They often forget to take their medications or take them incorrectly. This is a very serious issue and often leads to unnecessary hospitalization which can precipitate a downward spiral. We discussed a variety of options, including a visiting nurse and an automatic medication dispenser.

5. Take a Deep Breath

As with all our clients, Jane loves her parents and wants what is best for them. However, her vision of what is best for them doesn’t necessarily coincide with their vision. As a caregiver-child myself, I can very much relate to her frustration of having a clear idea of what will improve an elderly parent’s quality and/or quantity of life and having that parent refuse to make a change. Sometimes small changes are acceptable and they can make a difference and prolong stability. But very often the best we can do is to plan for the emergency and know we have done the best we can.

©2020, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more on caring for elderly relations, see the National Law Review Family Law, Divorce & Custody type-of-law section.

US Banking Agencies Issue Statement on Alternative Date in Credit Underwriting

On December 3, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the National Credit Union Administration (the Banking Agencies) released interagency guidance related to the use of alternative data for purposes of underwriting credit (the Guidance).

The Guidance acknowledges that alternative data may “improve the speed and accuracy of credit decisions,” especially in cases where consumer credit applicants have “thin files” because they are generally outside the mainstream credit system. In order to comply with applicable federal laws and regulations when using such alterative data, including those related to unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, the Banking Agencies advise that lenders should responsibly use such information. Furthermore, the Guidance reminds lenders of the importance of an appropriate compliance management program that comports with the requirements of applicable consumer protection laws and regulations.

As a final recommendation, the Banking Agencies suggest that lenders consult with appropriate regulators when planning to use alternative data to underwrite credit.

The Guidance is available here.

©2019 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Japan’s New Crypto Regulation – 2019 Amendments to Payment Services Act and Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan

Japan will fundamentally change its crypto asset regulations effective in spring of 2020.

In May, 2019, the National Diet, the Japanese national legislature, passed an amendment bill to the Payment Services Act (the “PSA”) and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (the “FIEA”), which was promulgated on June 7, 2019 (the “2019 Amendment”).  The 2019 Amendment will become effective within one year from promulgation, following further rulemaking by the Japan Financial Services Agency (the “JFSA”) to implement the 2019 Amendment, which is anticipated sometime soon and includes public comment process.

Key Takeaways of the 2019 Amendment

The 2019 Amendment, coming into force within one year of the promulgation, will bring certain significant and fundamental changes to how crypto assets are regulated in Japan.  Key takeaways are:

  • Crypto asset margin trading and other crypto asset derivative transactions will become subject to Japanese regulations on derivative transactions generally.  Broker-dealers and exchanges will likely need to revisit and update their registration status and policies and procedures.  While it may be possible to rely on a limited grandfathering provision for 6 months after the effective date, a notification must be submitted to a relevant local Finance Bureau within two weeks after the effective date of the 2019 Amendment.
  • Certain crypto assets distributed through distributed ledger technologies (such as blockchain) will be expressly regulated as Type I securities.  Consequently, solicitation and offering of such crypto assets, including Initial Coin Offerings, to Japanese investors will require careful review and structuring to avoid any regulatory pitfalls.
  • Crypto asset-related custodial activities will be subject to licensing.
  • Crypto asset trading activities will be subject to various prohibitions on unfair trading and practices.
  • A detailed rulemaking process will follow and involve opportunities to submit comments during the public consultation process.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

ARTICLE BY Tsuguhito Omagari of K&L Gates.
More on cyprocurrency regulation on the National Law Review Financial Institutions & Banking law page.

The Future of the CFPB: the Executive Branch and Separation of Powers

On October 18, 2019 the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). SCOTUS  will answer the question of “whether the substantial executive authority yielded by the CFPB, an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers,” and the Justices requested that the parties brief and argue an additional issue: “If the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, can 12 U.S.C. § 5491(c)(3) [the for-cause removal provision] be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act?”

Origins of the Consumer Financial Bureau and Previous Constitutional Challenges

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank) established the CFPB as an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve System designed to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices.  The structure and constitutionality of the CFPB has been addressed before. In 2018, the D.C. Circuit held in PHH Corp. v. CFPB, No. 15-1177 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (PHH) that the current structure of the CFPB, which features a single director that cannot be removed by the president except for cause, “is consistent with Article II” of the Constitution.

The PHH opinion stated that Congress’ response to the consumer finance abuse that led up to the 2008 financial crisis purposely created the CFPB to be “a regulator attentive to individuals and families”  because the existing regulatory agencies were too concerned about the financial industry they were supposed to supervise. It was determined that the CFPB needed independence to do its job, and the CPFB structure was designed to confer that independence.   Neither PHH Corporation nor the CFPB filed a petition for certiorari to ask the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision.

Background of the Seila Law Case

In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) the Petitioner is a law firm that provides a variety of legal services to consumers, and as part of a CFPB investigation into whether Seila Law violated certain federal laws, the CFPB issued a civil investigative demand seeking information and documents. Seila Law objected to the demand on the ground that the CFPB was unconstitutionally structured and filed a petition to a federal district court for enforcement. The district court held that the structure of the CFPB did not violate the separation of powers and was constitutional, after which that district court decision was appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, noting that the issues had been “thoroughly canvassed” in the DC Circuit it in PHH, and adopting the position of the PHH majority that the CFPB’s structure is constitutional. Seila Law filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and here we are.

An Experienced Federal Agency Litigator’s Perspective

Mr. Anthony E. DiResta, is co-chair of Holland & Knight’s Consumer Protection Defense and Compliance Team, and a former Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Southeast Regional office.  Mr. DiResta was kind enough to take some time with the National Law Review to discuss the upcoming Seila Law decision and its impact on the future of the CFPB.

_______________

NLR: Can you sum up the CFPB and separation of powers story to this point from your own viewpoint?

DiResta: The Supreme Court has decided to review this case because of the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure, based on separation of powers. Any single leader in government who doesn’t serve at the pleasure of the President may simply have too much power, and people with certain jurisprudential philosophies about how government should be run find that an offensive situation. That’s the theory behind the certiorari decision and why SCOTUS is addressing the case – it’s really a question of constitutionality and the power of administrative agencies. Additionally, the Court will look at the severability of the CFPB in Dodd-Frank, whether it’s possible to just restructure the single leader structure, and then leave the Bureau intact to continue business as usual.

NLR: It seems many of these issues could’ve been avoided had the CFPB been structured more as a multi-member commission initially or if Congress had simply expanded FTC powers.  Why do you think it was structured differently?

DiResta: That’s a matter of speculation – but I think it might have gone something like this: After the Recession in the early 2000s, many people felt that government was asleep at the wheel, letting  devastating things in banking and finance and servicing to consumers run out of control, which led to serious blunders and mishaps. So it was decided that a new office was needed – and this was led by representatives in Congress like Elizabeth Warren.

Why they didn’t simply expand the power and resources of the FTC is also pure speculation – they could have merely expanded FTC’s jurisdiction and reach to achieve similar outcomes and intentions.

The Constitutionality of the CFPB

NLR: Do you think SCOTUS will rule in favor of the petitioner in Seila Law, and find the structure of the CFPB unconstitutional?

DiResta: I do. I suspect that SCOTUS will, in fact, find the structure unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers. But I also believe that an even more interesting part of that will be the discussion of the severability of the organization’s leadership, leaving the CFPB itself intact. If the structure is unconstitutional, how the Court recommends a remedy to correct that unconstitutionality could have far-reaching effects. This is so important – and we should all be excited that we get to watch this corrective process in action.

NLR: Is there a chance this would result in a complete restructure of CFPB, or even its possible dissolution?

DiResta: I really don’t think so – and the Court couldn’t do that anyway. The Court could recommend to Congress that a certain path for correction be followed, but it will be up to Congress to rearrange the CFPB (if that’s the result) in the best way. The legislative branch will just have to make sure it’s done, in a way that the Court recommends.

Some More Background on CFPB Constitutionality Litigation

Then-Judge, now Justice Kavanaugh was on the U.S Court of Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit for the 2018 en banc ruling in the PHH Corp. v. CFPB case and on the 2016 three-judge decision. Judge Kavanaugh authored two opinions regarding PHH:  declaring a certain aspect of the CFPB to be unconstitutional and in 2018, the dissenting opinion from the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit’s decision overruling the 2016 panel opinion.

The 2016 panel opinion determined that the structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional stating:  “The concentration of massive, unchecked power in a single Director marks a dramatic departure from settled historical practice and makes the CFPB unique among independent agencies.” And the 2016 panel also presented a view of the Constitution that vests with the president an extensive degree of unilateral authority over the executive branch’s enforcement of federal laws.

NLR:  Since Justice Kavanaugh was a judge involved in a similar case – PHH Corp. v. CFPB – why is he allowed to rule on this matter again?

DiResta: I’m not an expert on judicial ethics but there does not appear to be improper bias in Kavanaugh reviewing this decision. Rather, his views in PHH reflect a philosophical perspective on separation of powers and the role of administrative agencies.  In fact, I expect they’ll use his past ruling on PHH as part of their internal discussion.

Seila Law v CFPB and Election Politics

NLR: It’s difficult to ignore the political undertones of this case:  a watchdog organization created, in part, with input from some high-profile democrats (most notably Elizabeth Warren, who is currently running as a candidate for president) is being challenged and that challenge is being echoed in support by largely conservative elements.  In your view, is this case a litmus test for the Supreme Court delving into political issues, something it has largely tried not to do?

DiResta: No – I really don’t see this as political. Again, this is a purely constitutional question, a legal question, and it’s exactly the kind of case the SCOTUS should be deciding. If we’re honest, this is a perfect example of why we have SCOTUS in the first place: To examine how effective our public servants are behaving and performing their responsibilities under the constitutional structure revealed in the separation of powers doctrine.

Besides that, politically speaking, this could boomerang. Consider: if the Democrats win the White House in 2020, and the Court were to change the structure, that would offer any Democratic President the opportunity to appoint a new Director in 2021, and Kathleen Kraninger’s term isn’t up until 2023.

Informed Democracy at Work

While the situation with CFPB and its constitutionality is demonstrably important, DiResta touched on a few more salient – though no less important – points.

DiResta: Democracy isn’t supposed to be easy. Democracy is hard – it’s messy and complicated. It’s in its nature, and in the nature of different ideas.

In a free marketplace of ideas, people will clash when citizens are free to express themselves, and there will always be conflict – but it’s out of resolving those conflicts that democracy claims – and grows – its power and attraction. It’s so important that we – the people – see this and get to comment on it – to watch this happening.

NLR: Absolutely. In a world where the news cycle has compressed from days, to hours, to minutes – while attention spans have diminished in similar fashion – it’s increasingly important that these monumental workings in government are transparent, and that people see them.

DiResta: I couldn’t agree more. And – as a young lawyer, I  had the privilege to work with some very dedicated and highly professional journalists who understood journalism as a public service, not as entertainment.  These journalists saw themselves as educators, bringing light to the processes and prospects of government to citizens. And that’s how the media serves effectively as the Fourth Branch of government. A branch that presents a constant check to the power of government and its branches, and that gives the people the knowledge to make better decisions, and to vote for the best people and the best situations.

We sincerely appreciate Mr. DiResta for his thoughtful insights and for taking time out of his busy schedule to share them with the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2019 National Law Forum, LLC

Appellate Court Tells CitiMortgage It Can’t Force “Repurchase” Of What No Longer Exists

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit offers some vindication for mortgage companies still facing “repurchase” demands made by the banks to which they sold residential mortgages in the years leading up to the financial crisis that began in 2007 and accelerated in 2008.  In CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Equity Bank, N.A., No. 18-1312 (8th Cir. 2019), the Eighth Circuit (which has appellate jurisdiction over the federal district courts of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas) reached the common-sense conclusion that a plaintiff cannot require a defendant loan originator/seller to “repurchase” a loan extinguished by foreclosure.  In such a circumstance, the court reasoned, there simply is nothing left to repurchase.  In so holding, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri  — a court that, despite being CitiMortgage’s consistently chosen forum for repurchase and contractual indemnification claims against loan sellers, had granted summary judgment to the defendant, Equity Bank, on this issue.

The relevant factual background is as follows. CitiMortgage filed suit against Equity, demanding that Equity repurchase 12 residential mortgage loans. CitiMortgage had notified Equity that it needed to take action under the cure-or-purchase provision in the parties’ Agreement.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Equity’s duty to repurchase was limited to the six loans that had not gone through foreclosure. For the loans that had not gone through foreclosure, the court affirmed the district court’s holding that Equity breached the Agreement. The court rejected Equity’s claims that CitiMortgage’s letters lacked the necessary detail to trigger its duty to perform, and that CitiMortgage waited too long to exercise its rights. But, as to the six loans that had gone through foreclosure, the court affirmed the district court’s holding that Equity owed nothing to CitiMortgage.

As part of its analysis detailing the reasons that Equity could not be required to repurchase loans already foreclosed upon, the Eighth Circuit faulted CitiMortgage for never explaining what, exactly, Equity was supposed to repurchase. We have regularly made that argument when defending clients against repurchase claims and likewise, have never gotten a satisfactory response as to what our client could repurchase.   Typically, in tacit acknowledgment of the merit of that argument, plaintiffs make sure to do something that the appellate court intimated CitiMortgage should have done in this case.  That is to seek instead what is usually an alternative contractual remedy, indemnification.   Perhaps because it considered the repurchase provision in its contract with Equity more likely to generate a significant damages award (this contract’s repurchase provision established a “repurchase price formula” favorable to CitiMortgage), CitiMortgage opted in this case to seek only the remedy of “repurchase.”

To be sure, a plaintiff’s decision to seek an “indemnification” remedy also creates obstacles to recovery in most cases of this type.  Among those obstacles are many of the same statute of limitations problems that parties asking for repurchase face, as well as substantial questions about the circumstances under which the party seeking indemnification incurred the liability for which it is seeking payment.  Relatedly, whether a particular alleged loan defect can fairly be said to have caused the plaintiff’s monetary loss is typically very much in question when a plaintiff aggregator seeks indemnification from a defendant loan seller. Many battles over such issues remain to be fought, but, in the meantime, the Eighth Circuit’s recognition that a party cannot repurchase what no longer exists is a welcome development for residential mortgage loan originators.

© 2019 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP