Month: September 2022

The New York Department of Financial Services released revised regulations implementing the Commercial Finance Disclosure Law. These regulations set forth the precise formatting and calculation methods providers must use to make commercial financing offers in amounts under $2.5 million. This version was released after 18 comments were submitted to the Department during the public comment period. The revised regulations propose several key changes and clarifications. Read More

On August 29, 2022, Blue Ridge Bank (“Bank”), which has $2.8 billion in assets, entered into a formal written agreement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) regarding the Bank’s oversight of its fintech partners. The OCC found unsafe and unsound practices relating to Bank oversight of third-party risk, Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering risk management, suspicious activity reporting and information technology control and risk
governance.

The OCC enforcement action agreement requires the Bank to take certain steps to improve third-party oversight and risk management, including the establishment of a majority-independent Compliance Committee, which must be approved by the Assistant Deputy Comptroller. Additionally, the Bank must adopt and implement a written program to assess and manage the risks posed by fintech partnerships, taking into consideration previous OCC guidance on community bank partnerships with fintechs. The Bank must also obtain OCC non-objection prior to onboarding new fintech partners or offering new products or services with existing fintech partners. Read More

The entire Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reheard Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services and reversed the previous panel holding. The entire Eleventh Circuit now holds (8 to 4) that plaintiff Hunstein failed to allege a concrete harm that would provide Article III standing to pursue his claims in federal court. Previously, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit previously found Hunstein had standing to sue, which spawned thousands of
copycat cases across the country. See our ALERT dated Nov. 18, 2021.

This case does not address the underlying substantive question of whether the use of a third party letter vendor violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), however. The case only addresses whether Hunstein has standing to sue in federal court. The majority opinion takes care to state that its holding is that Hunstein himself did not have standing to sue because there was no public disclosure of his private debt information. The district court proceedings did not go beyond a motion to dismiss so the factual record is limited and the court’s discussion is limited solely to the issue of standing based on the pleadings. Read More