US – Page 10 – FinTech and Blockchain Law Watch

SEC FinTech Forum Part 1

Nov 22 2016

On November 14, 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission held its first forum exclusively focused on the impact of the FinTech movement on the capital markets. Specifically, the forum was organized into four panels addressing automated investment advice, blockchain and distributed ledger technology, crowd funding and marketplace lending, and investor protection. Over the coming weeks we will be posting the key takeaways and implications of each panel.

In her opening remarks, Chair White called for federal agencies to encourage innovation while balancing such encouragement with appropriate investor protections. She noted that the speed and impact of FinTech innovation increases the need for reviewing the sufficiency of regulation. In that spirit, Chair White asked the SEC staff to form a FinTech Working Group to help foster responsible innovation in the capital markets, while exploring the adequacy of the current regulatory framework to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. Commissioner Piwowar said in his remarks that the SEC is uniquely positioned to take the lead regulatory role in the FinTech movement, because many FinTech companies are already registrants and, significantly, the SEC is the only federal agency whose mission includes capital formation. The remarks at the forum indicate that the SEC and industry expect FinTech to play an increasingly important role in the securities industry and that the SEC should continue to engage with industry members in developing regulations that are thorough and forward-looking.

Fraud-Prevention Resources for Online Lenders

Nov 14 2016

By Joseph A. Valenti

Several resources exist—and are receiving renewed attention—to help companies combat fraud committed during the online-lending process. With cybercrime on the rise, the non-profit Pittsburgh-headquartered National Cyber-Forensics & Training Alliance (“NCFTA”) announced earlier this year that it was opening offices in financial centers New York and Los Angeles. The NCFTA conducts real-time information sharing and analysis with experts in the public, private, and academic sectors, with its Cyber Financial Program specifically dedicated to identifying and neutralizing cyber threats to the financial-services industry from malware, phishing, social engineering, and other computer-aided or fraudulent methods. In October 2016, TransUnion launched the Fraud Prevention Exchange, an industry collaborative where reports of prior fraud and ongoing high-velocity applications are shared to help show what identities and devices may be compromised and—knowingly or unknowingly—participating in fraud. Several other industry players got involved in the Online Lending Network later that month to share data on loan applications and funded loans to assist in combatting loan stacking and excessive credit risk.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) works under the parameters of Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act to assist financial institutions in sharing information with one another to identify and report activities that may involve money laundering or terrorist activity. FinCEN has “strongly encouraged” voluntary information sharing under 314(b)’s safe harbor to boost customer-due-diligence programs, bring more transparency to convoluted financial trails, and alert financial institutions to known bad actors they may not have encountered yet.

These same reasons support increased and real-time sharing of fraud-prevention data between financial institutions, particularly in the online-lending industry that is growing and speedy. As the industry matures, it seems destined for collaboration on fraud-prevention issues.

Comprehensive Analysis of the CFPB’s Final Prepaid Account Rule

Nov 10 2016

By Eric A. Love, Linda C. Odom and Judie Rinearson

As noted in our previous blog post, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) finalized on October 5 its long-awaited Final Rule for prepaid accounts under the implementing regulations for the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). Effective October 1, 2017, the Final Rule clocks in at nearly 1,700 pages and represents the most significant change to the legal and regulatory landscape of the prepaid account industry since the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s issuance in 2011 of a final rule regarding prepaid access. Although the CFPB’s Final Rule retains many key aspects of the agency’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on prepaid accounts, the Final Rule differs from the NPRM in a number of important respects and will create a new set of compliance hurdles for the prepaid account industry.

In our alert entitled “CFPB Finalizes Expansive Prepaid Account Rule Creating New Compliance Hurdles,” we provide a comprehensive analysis of the Final Rule and highlight several notable differences between the Final Rule and the NPRM. You can read the full alert here.

The U.S. Wants a Sandbox Too

Nov 03 2016

By C. Todd Gibson and Tyler Kirk

On September 22, 2016, Republican Congressman Patrick McHenry from North Carolina announced the introduction of H.R. 6118, the Financial Services Innovation Act of 2016 (the “Bill”). McHenry is the chief deputy whip and vice chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. According to the press release, the bill was introduced as part of the “Innovation Initiative” that McHenry co-launched earlier this year with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a fellow Republican from California. On October 19, 2016, the Bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit. Before the Bill becomes law in the United States, it must be past by both chambers of Congress and signed by the President. With this Bill, America joins, among others, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and Malaysia in establishing FinTech regulatory sandboxes.

In its current form, the Bill takes a two-prong approach to constructing a regulatory sandbox. First, it creates a government-wide FinTech oversight regime, and second, it codifies an exclusive no-action relief mechanism for financial innovators. Under the first prong, the Bill requires federal regulators to adopt a mandate to encourage innovation in the financial industry through the creation of Financial Services Innovation Offices (“FSIOs”). Further, the Bill provides for the establishment of the FSIO Liaison Committee (“Committee”) comprised of the directors of each agency’s FSIO. The purpose of the Committee is to coordinate the regulation of companies seeking to bring new and innovative financial technologies to market (“Covered Persons”). Under the second prong, Covered Persons may petition regulators for an alternative compliance plan under an “enforceable compliance agreement,” that will provide the conditions under which the Covered Person may implement their financial innovation (including any regulatory waivers).

The future of Fintech event, San Francisco, 1 November

Oct 28 2016

K&L Gates will be co-hosting an event with the Silicon Vikings in San Francisco on Tuesday November 1st. This will be a panel session with presenting companies including: Checkbook, bitwage, StratiFi and Qwil. An event not to be missed.

The panel will include:

Sanjiv Das, Professor of Finance, Santa Clara University
Jacob Sisk, VP Payments & Data Science, CapitalOne
Tyler He, Business Development, Tencent
Moderator & Event Chair: Shikhar Das, Assistera

Details of the event:

Date/time: Tuesday, November 1st, 6.00 pm – 8.30 pm
Location: K&L Gates, 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94103 (google maps)
Register: Click here for more details or to register to attend

For any queries, please contact K&L Gates partner, Lars Johansson.

A guide to doing FinTech business in the U.S. and Germany

Oct 28 2016

“Getting the Deal Through” is a publication that provides international expert analysis in key areas of law, practice and regulation for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners, and company directors and officers.

The inaugural edition of Fintech serves as a resource to help fintech entrepreneurs and their advisers and investors around the world navigate the often complex key legal and regulatory issues on which we are most often asked to advise. Two of the chapters were authored by K&L Gates lawyers.

The Germany chapter is authored by Dr. Hilger von Livonius, Dr. Friederike Gräfin von Brühl and Dr. Thomas Nietsch.

The United States chapter is authored by Judith Rinearson, Robert Zinn, Anthony Nolan, C. Todd Gibson and Andrew Reibman.

To read this publication, click here.

Blockchain’s Smart Contract Solution Wins EY Startup Challenge

Oct 28 2016

By Susan P. Altman

The world is abuzz with news about blockchain development and technology lawyers need to understand the implications. The rise of smart contracts, or automated implementation of portions of real-life contracts by transferring assets between parties, is one of those interesting implications. A smart contract is neither smart, nor a contract, but can be regarded by lawyers as a technological solution that automates some transfer between parties to a contract, such as payment or release of information, upon the occurrence of a triggering event. At its most basic, a smart contract consists of fixed program code, a storage file and an account.

Recent news about a startup company making headway with smart contract technology development is worth noting. Adjoint, Inc., based in Boston, is trying to market a solution where financial transactions are automated through smart contracts and work with many proprietary interfaces. The solution provides a consensus protocol (a protocol used in blockchain to get all the processes to agree on a specific value for verification) that allows companies to deploy and analyze a network of smart contracts on top of a mathematically verified distributed and encrypted ledgers.

Are robo-advisers required to act in their clients best interests?

Oct 24 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

In Australia, robo-advisers providing personal financial product advice must comply with the statutory fiduciary duty to act in the client’s best interests. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has made it clear that the duty is technology neutral and applies to robo-advisers as well as traditional advisers. ASIC also clearly stated its position that robo-advisers are able to comply with the duty (Regulatory Guide 255)

Robo-advisers in the US do not currently have the same clarity as their Australian counterparts. US advisors are subject to fiduciary duties from a number of sources depending on the type of advice given and the type of adviser giving it. The Massachusetts Securities Division (MSD) has stated that robo-advisers and traditional advisers have the same fiduciary duty. However, MSD and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have raised questions over robo-advisers’ ability to comply with the duty and hold themselves out to be fiduciaries. MSD is particularly concerned that from its research it appeared to be usual for robo-advisers not to perform any significant due diligence on their client’s circumstances which is needed to make appropriate investment decisions. The SEC is currently working on a fiduciary rule for advisers with plans to release the proposal in April 2017.

In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has developed the Principles for Businesses (PRIN) which includes the requirement to pay due regard to the interests of customers and treat them fairly. The FCA has stated that the PRIN applies to all regulated firms including robo-advisers. The FCA established an Advice Unit to provide particular guidance to robo-advisers in June 2016.

CFPB Finalizes Much-Anticipated Prepaid Account Rule

Oct 17 2016

By Eric A. Love, Linda C. Odom and Judith Rinearson

On October 5, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued its much-anticipated Final Rule for prepaid accounts under the implementing regulations for the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth In Lending Act (Regulation Z). The Final Rule is effective on October 1, 2017 and governs “prepaid accounts” including:*

general purpose reloadable cards
mobile wallets and certain other electronic prepaid accounts
peer-to-peer payment products
student financial aid disbursement cards
tax refund cards
payroll cards
government benefit cards

Blockchain–powered contract management and outsourcing

Sep 28 2016

By Susan P. Altman

Add outsourcing services to the long list of industries that face disruption directly attributable to blockchain, which list already includes financial services, supply chains, IoT, risk management, digital rights management and healthcare. It is well-known that blockchain technology, that is, technology enabling distributed ledgers with continuously maintained and verified blocks of records, promises huge savings and disruption in the financial services industry. IBM has now partnered with the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (BTMU) to apply blockchain technology to the design, management and execution of contracts between businesses. IBM and BTMU are piloting a blockchain project to test its usefulness in automating business transactions for which one party has contracted with the other to provide goods or services. Initially, the technology will be used to monitor delivery and usage of equipment with a sensor that embeds information into the blockchain. The information will then automate invoicing and payment processes between the two companies.

Of especial interest to outsourcing lawyers is the announcement that IBM and BTMU will develop smart contracts on a blockchain to improve the efficiency and accountability of service level agreements in multi-party business interactions. It appears the technology is intended to be used in the increasingly common and complex environment of multi-party, multi-vendor services. Lawyers can expect to see more robust service level agreements with service providers within that complex environment, certainly in terms of accountability. However, it remains true that service levels are only as valuable as the relevancy of what is being measured. And that is still a decision that, for now, requires human input.

Tag:US