US – Page 11 – FinTech and Blockchain Law Watch

To support payments innovation, avoid unnecessary regulation

Sep 12 2016

The rapid growth of new payment system innovation in recent years in many ways mirrors similar growth in the credit card industry in the 1950s and 1960s. A review of the development of the credit card industry leading up to the significant amendments to the Truth in Lending Act in 1970, and the ultimate effect of the legislation when viewed against the concerns voiced by Congress, arguably demonstrate that the legislation was unnecessary, inefficient and anticompetitive. Accordingly, legislatures and regulators should take a cautious approach to enacting restrictions proposed in the name of consumer protection. To avoid the mistakes of the past, legislatures and regulators should carefully consider how such measures might limit competition and innovation, whether such measures would truly result in a benefit to consumers, and whether there are any less restrictive measures that would result in equivalent consumer protection.

You can read my full article here.

Who bears the risk? Federal Court holds that a purchaser of unsecured consumer loans is the “true lender”

Sep 09 2016

By Irene C. Freidel and David D. Christensen

A California federal court has held that the purchaser of consumer loans is the “true lender” and thus subject to state usury laws, even though a separate entity funded and closed the loans in its own name. The recent decision, however, is another reminder that US state and federal regulators, as well as plaintiffs’ attorneys, may be able to pierce these partnerships where the financial institution funding and closing the loan does not bear substantial risk on those loans.

U.S. Banking regulators issue a “Joint Fact Sheet on Foreign Correspondent Banking”: Is this a response to global fears of US “DeRisking”? And if so, does it go far enough?

Sep 07 2016

By Judith Rinearson

This summer, “de-risking” has become a hot topic. De-risking is the term used to describe the process many banks have taken to cancel bank accounts and correspondent banking relationships with customers whom they deem to be too risky, or not worth the cost of ensuring compliance. Losing a bank account relationship can be devastating for small businesses and many emerging payments companies have found it increasingly difficult to obtain banking service due to perceptions that providing banking services for “fintechs,” blockchain companies and other innovative payments companies would be “high risk”.

The concerns about derisking are not limited to its impact on small businesses; it has also impacted on small countries. IMF President Christine LaGarde noted in July 2016 that “regulators in key financial centers need to clarify regulatory expectations …and global banks need to avoid knee-jerk reactions and find sensible ways to reduce their costs.”

The politicization of encryption: party “platforms” or “platitudes”?

Sep 01 2016

By Tyler Kirk

In the United States, the political stage is set for what may turn out to be one of the most infamous presidential elections in America’s history. As noted in an earlier blog post, the regulation of encryption by U.S. legislators and regulatory agencies may have a damaging impact on FinTech, and in particular, on the adoption of blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies. In this post, we look at the relevant Party Platforms to learn what, if anything, they say about encryption.

Proposed FDIC guidance on marketplace lending could have far reaching impact on industry

Aug 31 2016

By Sean Mahoney

Following up on its recent Supervisory Insights article on marketplace lending and Advisory on Effective Risk Management Practices for Purchased Loans and Purchased Loan Participations, the FDIC on July 31, 2016 released its proposed Examination Guidance for Third-Party Lending. If nothing else, this series of recent developments demonstrates the FDIC’s concern with the role of banks in marketplace lending. Unlike the prior two releases, the July proposed guidance is subject to public comment, with a comment period expiring October 27, 2016.

All three issuances share a common set of fundamental concerns. These include concerns that (a) a bank may rely on a marketplace lending platform to an unjustified extent; (b) the marketplace lending activity may not fit within a bank’s corporate strategy; (c) that lending through a marketplace platform may not be consistent with the bank’s underwriting standards; (d) that the bank may not adequately assure that the activity is being conducted in accordance with applicable law; and (e) that the bank may not otherwise adequately manage risks inherent in the activity. The Proposed Guidance goes a few steps further by requiring that banks that engage in marketplace lending activities have specific, detailed policies and procedures addressing a set of prescribed parameters. Further the Proposed Guidance would mandate that contracts between a bank and marketplace lending platform provide the bank with, among other things, (i) the right to mandate that the platform adopt policies and procedures governing any activity outsourced to the platform, and (ii) rights to performance data, audits and funding information.

While the Proposed Guidance will only apply to state-chartered, FDIC-insured banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System, it could have far-reaching effects given the increased prevalence of state-chartered banks of all types in marketplace lending. Moreover, the Proposed Guidance may strain the tension between financial innovation and comprehensive regulatory oversight inherent in much of FinTech.

Marketplace lending technology patents held invalid

Aug 09 2016

By Joseph Valenti, Samuel Reger and Chris Bell

On July 25, 2016, three appellate judges in the United States held that a popular online marketplace lender’s patents were invalid because they merely reflected an “abstract idea” that is not entitled to be patented or otherwise eligible for exclusive protection under American intellectual-property laws. The practical effect of this decision is that the lender could not sue its competitors for patent infringement where those competitors allegedly used the same techniques to match borrowers with lenders on their own marketplace lending platforms.

The judges from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals likened the claimed inventions to a “fundamental economic concept” (i.e., an abstract idea) that served as the basis for the consumer-loan industry. They ruled that simply implementing this concept with “generic technology” to automate the process does not then make it patentable.

K&L Gates Adds Leading FinTech Partners

Jul 28 2016

Global law firm K&L Gates welcomes Judith Rinearson and Linda C. Odom as partners in the firm’s FinTech and Consumer Financial Services practices. Rinearson joins K&L Gates’ New York and London offices, and Odom, joins the Washington, D.C. office. “Judie Rinearson and Linda Odom are highly respected authorities in numerous key regulatory and commercial areas within the FinTech ecosystem,” stated Robert Zinn, co-leader of K&L Gates’ global corporate and transactional practice area as well as of the firm’s market-leading global FinTech practice.

To read our full press release please click here.

Massachusetts issues guidelines for using third-party robo-advisers

Jul 21 2016

By Susan P. Altman and C. Todd Gibson

In April 2016, the Massachusetts Securities Division issued a policy statement with respect to the fiduciary obligations of state-registered advisers providing robo-advice. The MSD has now issued further regulatory guidance in a new Policy Statement with respect to the use of third-party robo-advisers by state-registered investment advisers. The MSD noted the significant growth in popularity of third-party robo-advisers and the increasing number of state-registered investment advisers working with third-party robo-advisers.

The new guidance describes minimum disclosure that state-registered investment advisers using third-party robo-advisers must provide to investors in order to meet Massachusetts regulatory requirements, including:

Clearly identifying the robo-advisers and explaining their services;
Notifying investors that, when applicable, they could get the services directly from the robo-adviser without paying additional fees to the state-registered investment adviser;
Describing the value provided to the investor by the state-registered investment adviser;
Specifically identifying the services the state-registered adviser cannot perform, such as having no ability to access, select, change or customize the portfolio structure or investment products at the robo-adviser;
Identifying limitations of available investment products offered to the client through the robo-adviser; and
Using customized, easy-to-understand disclosure language.

Most importantly perhaps, the investment advisers must charge an advisory fee that is reasonable in light of fees charged by others providing essentially the same services. An investor is usually charged a fee by both the investment adviser and the robo-adviser based on a percentage of the investor’s assets under management. Massachusetts state-regulated advisers will have to demonstrate the value behind the fees they charge on top of the robo-adviser’s fees, such as specialized knowledge of the products or the investor’s personal circumstances.

The Policy Statement can be found here.

Global equity crowdfunding developments

Jul 19 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

Australia’s equity crowdfunding reforms have been delayed due to the Australian federal election. After passing the House of Representatives back in February the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015 lapsed in May when Parliament was dissolved. As the Turnbull Government was returned to power at the election it is likely the Bill will be reintroduced shortly. While crowdfunding changes have stalled in Australia developments have been continuing in the rest of the world .

Easier crowdfunding for FinTech start-ups in the USA has moved a step closer. The Fix Crowdfunding Act and the Supporting America’s Investors Act easily passed through the US House of Representatives on 6 July 2016 with bipartisan support and will now be introduced in the Senate. The Fix Crowdfunding Act will increase the maximum amount of money that a start-up can raise through crowdfunding from US$1 million to US$5 million. The Supporting America’s Investors Act increases the number of people allowed to invest in a qualifying venture capital fund from 100 up to 500. Read More

Regulators notice small business loans are big business

Jul 07 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

The focus in marketplace lending appears to be shifting to small business loans recently and it is clear that small business loans are big business. The European Investment Bank has agreed to make a £100 million investment in small business loans originated through Funding Circle in the UK as part of its priority to improve access to finance for small and medium businesses. In the US marketplace lenders originated around US$1.9B in 2015 up nearly 60% from 2014.

The increased volume of small business loans has not escaped the notice of US federal regulators. There are concerns that sometimes small businesses are essentially individual entrepreneurs and may not have any more tools than consumers to assess the terms of loans offered to them. The US Treasury’s recent white paper, Opportunities and Challenges in Online Marketplace Lending, made a number of recommendations including that more robust small business borrower protections and effective oversight be introduced for online marketplace lenders. A number of regulators including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Securities and Exchange Commission were contributors to that paper.

Tag:US