Financial Services Law Archives - Page 35 of 40

IRS: Interest Paid to Nonresident Aliens to Be Reported

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding a Recent IRS Decision About Nonresident Aliens and Interest Payments written by Rebecca Leon, Richard S. Zarin and the Investment Management Practice of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP:

Information regarding nonresident alien deposits in the United States could be provided to foreign governments as of January 2013, raising concern among non-U.S. residents holding deposits in the United States.

As part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury’s) efforts to prevent tax evasion, on April 19 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued final regulations (the New Rules) requiring the U.S. offices of financial institutions (such as commercial banks, savings institutions, credit unions, securities brokerages, and insurance companies) to report to the IRS deposit interest payments made to nonresident alien individuals.^[1]The New Rules are effective as of April 19, 2012, but only apply to interest payments made on or after January 1, 2013.^[2] The measure was taken by the IRS, in part, to enable the United States, through reciprocity, to obtain information on interest paid to U.S. taxpayers abroad, which, according to the IRS, often goes unreported.^[3]

The information collected by the IRS under the New Rules may be shared with countries that have an existing tax convention, agreement, or bilateral treaty with the United States regarding the exchange of tax information (collectively, information exchange agreements). In connection with the New Rules, the IRS has issued a list of the countries with which the United States has information exchange agreements:^[4]

Antigua & Barbuda

Aruba

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belgium

Bermuda

British Virgin Islands

Bulgaria

Canada

China

Costa Rica

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Egypt

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Gibraltar

Greece

Grenada

Guernsey

Guyana

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Ireland

Isle of Man

Israel

Italy

Jamaica

Japan

Jersey

Kazakhstan

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Marshall Islands

Mexico

Monaco

Morocco

Netherlands

Netherlands island territories: Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, St. Eustatius and St. Maarten (Dutch part)

New Zealand

Norway

Pakistan

Panama

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian Federation

Slovak Rep.

Slovenia

South Africa

South Korea

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sweden

Switzerland

Thailand

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Venezuela

In most cases, the IRS has some discretion in determining whether sharing information conforms to the applicable information exchange agreement. Canada is the only country that will receive the information automatically, without the need for a specific request. At this time, little guidance has been provided by U.S. tax officials regarding circumstances under which it will deny a request for information under the New Rules. It has been reported that U.S. officials have indicated a reluctance to share information with certain countries (e.g., Venezuela), but no such country-specific exclusions have been set forth.^[5]

While the New Rules will facilitate the IRS’s collection of information regarding nonresident aliens’ accounts in the United States, information exchange agreements usually carve out some protections for the dissemination of tax-related information. The information generally (i) will be provided only upon request of the recipient country (except in the case of Canada); (ii) must be protected by the confidentiality and secrecy laws of the recipient country; and (iii) may only be provided to authorities of the recipient country involved in the assessment, collection, and enforcement of taxes (and used for those purposes).^[6]

In addition, specific restrictions with respect to the exchange of tax information may apply under information exchange agreements between the United States and other countries. For example, with respect to Article 27 (Exchange of Information) of the U.S.-Venezuela Treaty to Prevent Double Taxation and Fiscal Evasion (the Convention), the technical explanation issued by the IRS on January 1, 2000, sets forth the following:

[T]he obligations undertaken in paragraph 1 [of Article 27 of the Convention] to exchange information do not require a Contracting State to carry out administrative measures that are at variance with the laws or administrative practice of either State. Nor is a Contracting State required to supply information not obtainable under the laws or administrative practice of either State, or to disclose trade secrets or other information, the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy. Thus, a requesting State may be denied information from the other State if the information would be obtained pursuant to procedures or measures that are broader than those available in the requesting State.^[7]

In this example, the laws of Venezuela could be instrumental in denying a request made by Venezuelan authorities under the Convention. Further, the Guidance on Reporting explains that the IRS is not compelled to exchange information, including information collected pursuant to the Revised Regulations, if there is concern regarding the use of the information or if other factors exist that would make exchange inappropriate.^[8] It is unclear to what extent this language may be used to deny requests from countries where U.S. authorities believe that shared information may not be adequately protected by foreign authorities.

Concerns with and Implications of the New Rules

In letters to Congress and the IRS, the American Bankers Association (ABA) expressed concerns about the impact of the New Rules.^[9] Specifically, the ABA is concerned that the New Rules leave too much uncertainty with respect to the protection and confidentiality of sensitive financial information by recipient countries, and that as a consequence, foreign investors will move their money to offshore accounts in order to avoid having their information shared with foreign authorities. There could be a sizeable impact in states like Florida and Texas, which have historically received a steady flow of deposits from Latin American investors. Wealthy individuals in some countries, including Mexico and Venezuela, often hold deposits in the United States, not to evade local taxes, but to protect their financial information and to avoid kidnappings for ransom, which have become commonplace in some areas. The ABA fears that billions in deposits may be removed from U.S. offices of financial institutions and that some regional banks may be particularly hard hit.^[10] More transparency in delineating between countries with which the IRS intends to regularly and consistently share information collected under the New Rules, and those with which it will not, could potentially avoid the transfer of U.S. deposits to offshore jurisdictions. It’s unclear when and if the IRS will address these concerns.

_{[1]. The New Rules were implemented through revisions to U.S. Treasury Regulations sections 1.6049-4(b)(5) and 1.6049-8 [hereinafter Revised Regulations], and were accompanied by a preamble to the Revised Regulations titled Guidance on Reporting Interest Paid to Nonresident Aliens, 77 Fed. Reg. 23,391 (April 19, 2012) (to be codified at 26 C.F.R. pts. 1 and 31) [hereinafter Guidance on Reporting].}

_{[2]. On July 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed a bill that included an amendment that could delay the January 1, 2013, operating date for the New Rules. The amendment (H. Amdt. 1469), offered by Representative Bill Posey (R-Fla), was added to the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, H.R. 4078, availablehere. The bill would prevent federal agencies from imposing new major regulations until the average of monthly unemployment rates for any quarter beginning after the date of enactment of the law is less than or equal to 6%, and it classifies the final New Rules as a significant regulatory action.}

_{[3]. As previously reported by Morgan Lewis, the Treasury released proposed regulations on February 8, 2012 implementing the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). In general, FATCA seeks to prevent tax evasion by identifying U.S. taxpayers who hold accounts with non-U.S. financial institutions, such as banks, offshore investment funds, and other entities. FATCA reporting is generally only applicable with respect to U.S. taxpayers. This includes reporting on nonresident U.S. taxpayers. Our LawFlashes discussing FATCA are available here.}

_{[4]. See Rev. Proc. 2012-24.}

_{[5]. Kevin Wack, Banks Push Back on New Tax Rules for Foreign Accounts, American Banker, May 2, 2012, at 12.}

_{[6]. Guidance on Reporting, supra note 1.}

_{[7]. Department of the Treasury Technical Explanation, Tax Convention with Venezuela, Art. 27, Exchange of Information, p. 2, available here.}

_{[8]. Guidance on Reporting, supra note 1.}

_{[9]. Letter from Francisca Mordi, Vice Pres., Am. Bankers Ass’n, to the Internal Revenue Serv. (Apr. 2, 2011), available here; Letter from Frank Keating, President and CEO, Am. Bankers Ass’n, to the Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart, Vice Chairman of the House Appropriations Fin. Servs. Subcomm., U.S. House of Representatives (March 28, 2012), availablehere; Transcript of Internal Revenue Serv. Hearing on Guidance (REG-146097-09) on Reporting Interest Paid to Nonresident Aliens (May 18, 2011), available here.}

_{[10]. Jared Janes, Foreign Deposits Could Leave Valley Banks under New IRS Regulation, The Monitor, April 28, 2012, available here.}

Derivatives Use by Public Companies – A Primer and Review of Key Issues

The Public Companies Group of Schiff Hardin LLP recently had an article regarding Derivatives published in The National Law Review:

Over the last several decades, the use of derivatives as a tool to mitigate and control risk has expanded significantly. Despite well-publicized abuses involving derivatives, the efficacy of derivatives as a means of managing economic and other forms of risk remains widely accepted. The evolving mix of users of derivatives in the last ten years has also impacted the derivatives landscape. Traditionally, commercial hedgers such as processors, mills and large corporations used derivatives to manage risks; today, while commercial hedgers remain active,much of the increase in volume in derivatives is attributable to non-traditional end-users, such as public companies, which have been active users of derivatives, most notably interest rate and foreign currency hedging instruments.

This article provides a brief primer on the various uses of derivatives, including the use of derivatives by public companies to manage risks. It also addresses a number of questions arising out of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides a new level of regulation over derivatives.

1. What is a Derivative?

Put simply, a derivative is a contract whose value is based upon (or derived from) the value of something else. Virtually every derivative, from the most complex to the most mundane, falls within this definition. The “something else,” which is often referred to as the “underlying” or the “commodity,” can be a security (e.g., a share of company stock or a U.S. Treasury note), a commodity (e.g., gold, soybeans or cattle), an index (e.g., the S&P 500 index), a reference rate (e.g., LIBOR), or virtually anything else to which a value can be assigned and validated. As long as the value of the contract is based on or “derived” from the value of something else, the contract is a derivative.

2. Types of Derivatives

Conceptually, derivatives take many different forms. At the highest and broadest level, there are two types of derivatives: (1) exchange-traded derivatives, and (2) over-the-counter, or “OTC,” derivatives, which are not traded an exchange.

Exchange-traded derivatives include futures, options on futures, security futures and listed equity options. OTC derivatives are privately negotiated contracts conducted almost entirely between institutions on a principal-to-principal basis and designed to permit customers to adjust individual risk positions with greater precision. OTC derivatives include swaps, options, forwards and hybrids of these instruments.

3. Dodd-Frank Act

In July 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act imposes a new regulatory regime on OTC derivativesand the market for those derivatives. The primary regulators are the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) for “swaps” and the SEC for “security-based swaps.” Subject to certain exceptions, ^[1] the term “swap” is broadly defined to include most types of products now known as OTC derivatives, including interest rate, currency, credit default and energy swaps. “Security-based swap” is a much narrower category of transactions based on a single security or loan or a “narrow-based security index” (as defined under the Commodity Exchange Act or “CEA”).

The CFTC’s general directive from Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act is to cause as many swaps as possible to be cleared by central clearing entities in order to reduce “systemic risk” to the financial markets, and to have as many swaps as possible traded on CFTC-regulated exchanges, or on or through other CFTC-regulated entities, in order to increase transparency in the markets. The Dodd-Frank Act thus makes it unlawful for a person to enter into a swap without complying with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules published by the CFTC.

Fortunately, most public company users of derivatives can make use of an exemption under the Dodd-Frank Act. Under Title VII, an “end user” generally means a company that is not a “financial entity” and that uses derivatives to hedge or mitigate commercial risk. The concept is intended to include industrial corporations and other non-financial enterprises that use swaps on interest rates, foreign currencies, energy, commodities and other derivatives, as appropriate to their businesses, to hedge their business risks. A so-called “end-user exemption” from the clearing and exchange trading requirements is generally available to counterparties that (1) are not financial entities, (2) are hedging their own commercial risks and (3) notify the CFTC or SEC, as applicable, how they generally meet their financial obligations associated with entering into uncleared swaps. A public company that relies on the exemption is also required to obtain the approval of its board of directors or other governing body.

4. Use of Derivatives by Public Companies

As end-users, public companies often use derivatives to manage various risks associated with running a large enterprise, including interest rate, foreign currency and commodity risk. According to a recent study, 29 of the 30 companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) use derivatives. Similarly, a study has found that two-thirds of companies with sales of more than $2 billion use OTC derivatives and more than half of all companies that have sales between $500 million and $2 billion are “very active” in derivatives markets.

Further, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association conducted a survey on the use of derivatives by Fortune Global 500 companies and found that 94% of these companies use derivatives to manage business and macroeconomic risks. According to the survey, the most widely used instruments were foreign exchange and interest rate derivatives. Many industries reported participation at rates greater than 90%, including financial companies (98%), basic materials companies (97%), technology companies (95%), and health care, industrial goods and utilities (92%).

Public companies typically use derivatives to manage interest rate risk and foreign currency risk and to minimize accounting earnings volatility and the present value of their tax liabilities. A company, for instance, may use derivatives to offset increases in the price of commodities it uses in manufacturing or its other operations. Further, large public companies borrow and lend substantial amounts in credit markets. In doing so, they are exposed to significant interest rate risk — they face substantial risk that the fair values or cash flows of interest sensitive assets or liabilities will change if interest rates increase or decrease. These companies also have significant international operations. As a result, they are also exposed to exchange rate risk — the risk that changes in foreign currency exchange rates will negatively impact the profitability of their international businesses. To reduce these risks, companies enter into interest rate and foreign currency swaps, forwards and futures as a hedge against potential exposures.

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act’s regulation of derivatives, a number of questions arise that public companies must consider (and revisit often as the regulatory landscape changes):

What are the implications of having our swaps — which were previously unregulated — executed on a regulated exchange or facility and cleared through a regulated clearinghouse?
How do we assure compliance with Section 723(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that a public company may not enter into non-cleared swaps unless an “appropriate committee of the issuer’s board or governing body has reviewed and approved its decision to enter into swaps that are subject to such exemptions” and other aspects of the end-user exemption? A similar requirement for “approval by an appropriate committee” is included for security-based swaps under the SEC’s jurisdiction.
Are we able to continue to effect bilateral, uncleared swap transactions in the same manner as we have historically done? What alternatives are there to hedge risk?
How will our relationship with our banks change as a result of these evolving regulatory requirements?
To what extent are our transactions in swaps subject to CFTC or SEC jurisdiction and oversight? How does that change over time as new regulations and rules are imposed and the regulatory regime evolves?
How do these rules impact our inter-affiliate transactions?
What type of derivatives risk management infrastructure and compliance monitoring protocol should we have in place?

5. Conclusion

In light of the Dodd-Frank Act and various rulemakings of the CFTC and SEC since its passage, the derivatives markets are undergoing an unprecedented regulatory and structural evolution that will present public company end-users of derivatives with both compliance and disclosure challenges, as well as new opportunities. Public companies should continually assess their use of derivatives and the potential implications under the Dodd-Frank Act as this regulatory regime continues to evolve.

_{1 Among the excepted categories are options on securities subject to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, contracts for the sale of commodities for future delivery and certain physically settled forward contracts.}

2012 Wealth Transfer Tax Laws: The Window of Opportunity is Rapidly Closing

An article by Glen T. Eichelberger, Mary Elizabeth Mason, Bridget O’Toole Purdie, and Brian P. Teaff of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP recently had an article featured in The National Law Review regarding Wealth Transfer:

The window of opportunity to take advantage of the currently applicable wealth transfer tax laws is rapidly closing, and once shut, it is possible that we may never see such generous estate planning opportunities again.

The unique estate planning opportunities currently available are a result of the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Authorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010” (2010 Act). The 2010 Act introduced the following:

$5,120,000 exemption per person for Federal estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer (GST) taxes
- Highest exemptions ever available
35% maximum marginal rate for the estate, gift and GST taxes
- Lowest rate in decades
“Reunification” of estate, gift and GST tax exemptions
- Greater Planning Flexibility
- Acting together, a couple can give up to $10,240,000 of assets (outright or in trust)

In addition, President Obama’s 2013 Budget Proposal contains proposed rules which would restrict a person’s ability to transfer wealth to their children and more remote descendants. The 2013 Budget Proposal includes the following rules:

Restrict grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs) to a minimum of 10 years

Elimination of the availability of certain valuation adjustments associated with family limited partnerships

The generous provisions of the 2010 Act are temporary and without further Congressional action, these provisions will expire on December 31, 2012. Act now before it is too late, so that you can benefit from the current advantageous estate opportunities and ensure you are not affected by the proposed rules from the 2013 Budget Proposal.

Consumer Financial Services Basics – ABA Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming Consumer Financial Services Basics Conference sponsored by the ABA:

When

October 08 – 09, 2012

Where

American University

Washington College of Law

Washington, DC

Program Description

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher.It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.Program FocusThis program will explain each of the major sources of regulation of consumer financial products in the context of the regulatory techniques and policies that are the common threads in a complex pattern, including:

Price regulation and federal preemption of state price limitations
Truth in lending and disclosure requirements
Marketing, advertising and unfair or deceptive conduct
Account servicing and collections
Regulating the “fairness” of financial institution conduct
Data security, fraud prevention and identity protection
Consumer reporting: FCRA & FACT Act
Fair lending and fair access to financial services
Remedies: regulators and private plaintiffs
Regulatory and legislative priorities for 2012 and beyond

Who Should Attend…The learning curve for private practitioners, in-house lawyers and government attorneys to understand the basics and changes to CFS law is very steep. This program is a great way to jump up that curve for:

Private practitioners with 1-10 years of experience who focus on CFS products or providers
In-house counsel at financial institutions and non-bank lenders
Government attorneys, in financial practices regulatory agencies
Compliance officers (who may be, but need not be, attorneys)

Consumer Financial Services Basics – ABA Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming Consumer Financial Services Basics Conference sponsored by the ABA:

When

October 08 – 09, 2012

Where

American University

Washington College of Law

Washington, DC

Program Description

Price regulation and federal preemption of state price limitations
Truth in lending and disclosure requirements
Marketing, advertising and unfair or deceptive conduct
Account servicing and collections
Regulating the “fairness” of financial institution conduct
Data security, fraud prevention and identity protection
Consumer reporting: FCRA & FACT Act
Fair lending and fair access to financial services
Remedies: regulators and private plaintiffs
Regulatory and legislative priorities for 2012 and beyond

Private practitioners with 1-10 years of experience who focus on CFS products or providers
In-house counsel at financial institutions and non-bank lenders
Government attorneys, in financial practices regulatory agencies
Compliance officers (who may be, but need not be, attorneys)

Underwater Condos – They Have Their Own Considerations Before Deciding on a Short Sale or Other Option

The Business Real Estate and Transactions Practice Group of Williams Kastner recently had an article about Underwater Condos published in The National Law Review:

A client recently brought to me a situation where his nephew’s new wife had purchased a condominium unit prior to their wedding. She financed the entire price with two mortgages and now it’s under water.

When advising owners of distressed properties it’s easy to begin with a discussion of the owner’s financial situation. Is this the only problem or are they bankruptcy candidates? Will the owner need credit in the near future for a job transfer or to finance a business?

With condos, my first questions go to the marketability of the unit:

What’s the owner occupancy ratio? Are we looking for a landlord or someone who wants to live there? Owner occupancy rates affect the availability and cost of financing as well as the type and number of willing buyers.
How healthy is the homeowners association? If owners have stopped paying their assessments the HOA could be under funded. This would discourage almost all buyers.
How well has the HOA planned for major repairs and capital improvements? Is there a reserve study? Will there be large special assessments in the coming years for roofing, painting, deck replacement, etc.?
Has the owner been paying their assessments? If not, will they be able to bring the assessments current at closing?

Many owners are unable to answer these questions because they stopped reading newsletters and minutes from the Board or going to owners meetings.

There are opportunities for investors and others in distressed properties. But, to help an owner, much of the craft is in knowing the questions that will quickly tell you what you’re dealing with. When it comes to condos, I want to know about the marketability of the unit before spending much time on the owner’s financial situation.

Patents for Financial Services Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Patents for Financial Services Summit:

The protection of patents and IP is critical to the financial services industry due to the increasingly competitive marketplace and the growth of patent trolls. You must ensure protection of your own innovation to remain competitive and take great care to avoid infringing on the patents of others. World Research Group’s 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit, which is being held on July 25-26, 2012 in NYC is intended for in-house legal executives to engage in networking opportunities, shared best practices, hear cutting-edge case studies, and discuss new rules and regulations impacting financial services patent policies. This two-day Summit will consist of informative educational sessions and interactive panel discussions led by senior-level patent counsels and experts on patent trends and strategies.

Join our Patents for the Financial Services Summit and benefit from in-depth discussions on ways to grow patent strategies, practical case-studies and interactive panel discussions, featuring experienced and highly knowledgeable IP counsels, regulators, law firms and technology experts.

The 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit addresses key issues and uncovers the latest developments including, but not limited to the following topics:

The America Invents Act and its impact on patent procedures and litigation
Implementing a successful monetization program to determine the most valuable and effective use of IP
Learning the newest updates from recent Supreme Court cases
Legal update on the US Patent Office Examination of financial services inventions post-Bilski
Aligning your IP department and outside counsel with corporate business objectives to impact the bottom line
Effectively managing your legal department activities and budget
Ensuring you consistently allocate resources to the right risks or opportunities, including identifying the cases to try and the cases to settle
Communicating with outside counsel to ensure an updated knowledge of the ever-changing legal landscape
Altering patent protection strategies to account for recent court decisions
Social media update on managing control over protected IP
Avoiding and managing patent litigation
Defending against patent trolls
Incentivizing employees and finding new ways to encourage creativity

Consumer Financial Services Basics – ABA Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming Consumer Financial Services Basics Conference sponsored by the ABA:

When

October 08 – 09, 2012

Where

American University

Washington College of Law

Washington, DC

Program Description

Price regulation and federal preemption of state price limitations
Truth in lending and disclosure requirements
Marketing, advertising and unfair or deceptive conduct
Account servicing and collections
Regulating the “fairness” of financial institution conduct
Data security, fraud prevention and identity protection
Consumer reporting: FCRA & FACT Act
Fair lending and fair access to financial services
Remedies: regulators and private plaintiffs
Regulatory and legislative priorities for 2012 and beyond

Private practitioners with 1-10 years of experience who focus on CFS products or providers
In-house counsel at financial institutions and non-bank lenders
Government attorneys, in financial practices regulatory agencies
Compliance officers (who may be, but need not be, attorneys)

Patents for Financial Services Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Patents for Financial Services Summit:

The 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit addresses key issues and uncovers the latest developments including, but not limited to the following topics:

The America Invents Act and its impact on patent procedures and litigation
Implementing a successful monetization program to determine the most valuable and effective use of IP
Learning the newest updates from recent Supreme Court cases
Legal update on the US Patent Office Examination of financial services inventions post-Bilski
Aligning your IP department and outside counsel with corporate business objectives to impact the bottom line
Effectively managing your legal department activities and budget
Ensuring you consistently allocate resources to the right risks or opportunities, including identifying the cases to try and the cases to settle
Communicating with outside counsel to ensure an updated knowledge of the ever-changing legal landscape
Altering patent protection strategies to account for recent court decisions
Social media update on managing control over protected IP
Avoiding and managing patent litigation
Defending against patent trolls
Incentivizing employees and finding new ways to encourage creativity

Consumer Financial Services Basics – ABA Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming Consumer Financial Services Basics Conference sponsored by the ABA:

When

October 08 – 09, 2012

Where

American University

Washington College of Law

Washington, DC

Program Description

Price regulation and federal preemption of state price limitations
Truth in lending and disclosure requirements
Marketing, advertising and unfair or deceptive conduct
Account servicing and collections
Regulating the “fairness” of financial institution conduct
Data security, fraud prevention and identity protection
Consumer reporting: FCRA & FACT Act
Fair lending and fair access to financial services
Remedies: regulators and private plaintiffs
Regulatory and legislative priorities for 2012 and beyond

Private practitioners with 1-10 years of experience who focus on CFS products or providers
In-house counsel at financial institutions and non-bank lenders
Government attorneys, in financial practices regulatory agencies
Compliance officers (who may be, but need not be, attorneys)

Category: Financial Services Law

IRS: Interest Paid to Nonresident Aliens to Be Reported

Concerns with and Implications of the New Rules

Like this: