SC Makes it Easier to Reach out and Touch Someone

It’s been more than a week now since a unanimous Supreme Court dramatically narrowed the reach of the Telephone Communication Protection Act (TCPA) and you can still hear the moans coming from class action attorneys everywhere who were feasting on alleged violations.

Since 1991, Congress has prohibited businesses from using auto-dialers to reach out to consumers without first getting their permission.  An auto-dialer is a device that has the capacity:

“(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and “(B) to dial such numbers.”

Violations of the Act start at $500 and go up to $1,500 for willful violations.  In recent years, the TCPA has been used against both banks and credit unions.  In Facebook, Inc., Petitioner v. Noah Duguid, et al, Facebook was sued by a disgruntled consumer who received text messages that someone was trying to access his account.  The problem was that he, like your faithful blogger, is one of the 10 people left in the universe who doesn’t have a Facebook account.  Since Facebook reached out to him without his permission using an automated system, he claimed that it violated the TCPA.

Had his argument been successful, every cell phone in America would come within the reach of the TCPA.  In contrast, the Supreme Court decided as a matter of statutory interpretation that Facebook had the better side of the argument.  The Supreme Court ruled that for the TCPA to apply, the automated system must use a random or sequential number generator to both store and produce numbers to call.  Facebook uses an automated system to call its members, but does not use a random or sequential number generator. 

The Court said that it was up to Congress to give Mr. Duguid the interpretation he was looking for.  Senator Markey indicated that he plans to do just that.  In the meantime, hundreds of suits are legal dead ends.

April 9, 2021 at 9:22 am Leave a comment

CFPB Proposes Nationwide Foreclosure Moratorium

In one of the most aggressive claims of regulatory authority in decades, the CFPB proposed regulations yesterday that would sharply limit the ability to begin foreclosure actions until the end of the year. 

To make sure borrowers aren’t rushed into foreclosure when a potentially unprecedented number of borrowers exit forbearance at around the same time this fall, the proposed rule would provide a special pre-foreclosure review period that would generally prohibit servicers from starting foreclosure until after December 31, 2021.”

To accomplish this goal regulations would create a new temporary COVID-19 pre-foreclosure emergency review period that wouldn’t expire until the end of the year.  The regulation would be coupled with enhanced loss mitigation options.  For example, current regulation already requires servicers to attempt to make live contact with delinquent borrowers.  The proposed rule would amend these regulations to mandate that borrowers be told about COVID-19 loss mitigation options.  The new time period for evaluating loss mitigation options would effectively prohibit foreclosures. 

Where does the CFPB have the authority to impose this de facto moratorium? It points out in the legal authority section of the regulations preamble that § 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act mandates that the Bureau “shall consider available evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services.” 12 U.S.C. 5532(c).  It argues that researchers have pointed to a link between financial stress and poor decision making that a longer pre-foreclosure period would help address. 

For those of us in New York, the regulations wouldn’t be all that different than statutory requirements which our elected representatives voted on and chose to put in place.  In contrast, I have half-jokingly referred to the CFPB Director as the benign dictator of consumer protection law.  If this regulation is allowed to take effect, I won’t be joking anymore.  No elected representative voting to create the CFPB thought they were giving an unelected bureaucrat overseeing an independent agency the right to preempt state property law in the absence of explicit Congressional authority. 

To be clear, I am proud of working for an industry that by and large does everything it can to avoid foreclosures.  But, for those of you in support of the Bureau’s action remember, that there will someday be a Director in charge appointed by a president with whom you disagree.  Do you want him or her to be able to exercise this much power?

April 6, 2021 at 10:04 am Leave a comment

If Your Member is Facing Foreclosure, You Should Read This Blog

Given the complexities of New York’s foreclosure law, minor mistakes can result in years of delay when it comes to repossessing a house that the borrower cannot afford.  Even before a foreclosure begins, for example, lenders have to be able to document that they sent out highly prescriptive pre-foreclosure notices.  The good news is that if you have consistent policies and procedures, these pitfalls can be avoided.  The Court of Appeals recently addressed this esoteric but vital area of the law.  For those of you who handle loss mitigation at the credit union the case is certainly worth reading and comparing to your policies and procedures. 

Section 1304 of New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law mandates that “…at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, or borrowers … such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer” shall mail a notice that they are in danger of being foreclosed on.  The notice must be sent by registered or certified mail.   

Sounds easy enough but how does a foreclosing party demonstrate that it has complied with this provision? 

In CIT Bank N.A. v. Schiffman, the Court of Appeals provided guidance on precisely this question.  One of the most common ways of demonstrating compliance with this requirement is to have a well-established documented procedure that your credit union always follows when sending out the required notices.  Use of a standardized procedure allows a third party to provide an affidavit to the court that pursuant to policy and procedure the notice was sent out in compliance with the law.  Crucially, New York law creates a rebuttable presumption that a mailed notice is received.  This means that a member can’t avoid a foreclosure action unless he can demonstrate why the notice was not received.  In this case the Court of Appeals provided guidance on precisely what type of proof meets this burden.  The court explained that “…the crux of the inquiry is whether the evidence of a defect casts doubt on the reliability of a key aspect of the process such that the inference that the notice was properly prepared and mailed is significantly undermined. Minor deviations of little consequence are insufficient.”

The type of proof necessary to meet this standard will depend on the specific facts but the more your credit union has a standard approach and doesn’t deviate from those protocols, the better off it is going to be.  In contrast, in this case CIT Bank raised the eyebrows of the borrower’s attorney by sending the 90 day pre-foreclosure notice almost a year before beginning the foreclosure. 

Another approach your credit union could take is to have the individual mailing the pre-foreclosure notice fill out an affidavit every time a notice is sent.  But even this approach should follow standard procedures and the affidavit should detail, among other things, how the notice was delivered to the post office.  There is actually a case in which a mailing was deemed to be insufficient because it did not include this information.   

Within three business days of the mailing of a pre-foreclosure notice, lenders must file a notice with New York’s Department of Financial Services (§ 1306).  The form includes basic information such as the address of the borrower.   Does the law require that this notice include all joint borrowers on a mortgage loan? I know this might seem like a little too much minutia on a Monday morning, but it is a key question for anyone who wants to foreclose on property anytime soon.  The Court of Appeals held that for purposes of the § 1306 filing, lenders satisfy this requirement by simply listing one borrower.  

April 5, 2021 at 10:38 am Leave a comment

Are You Ready for the COVID Regulatory Wave?

Recent announcements by the CFPB underscore that the next COVID regulatory wave is coming.  In addition to familiarizing yourself with the most recent guidance, now is the time to double check all your files and make sure you can explain to your examiner why you took the steps you took during this very unique time in banking history. 

The trigger for this somewhat paranoid opening paragraph is recent announcements by the CFPB.  On March 31st the Bureau announced that it was rescinding a previous guidance which relaxed various regulatory expectations and requirements during the pandemic.  In effectively announcing that it was putting the gloves back on, the Bureau explained in the accompanying press release that “Providing regulatory flexibility to companies should not come at the expense of consumers.” 

The funny thing about this comment is that the Bureau prides itself on being a fair, objective, data driven regulator.  I’m curious what evidence it has to suggest even indirectly that this regulatory flexibility has come at the expense of consumers? I would suggest that a relaxation of regulatory mandates provides a mechanism for small to medium size financial institutions to put their resources towards helping members on a case by case basis rather than checking off regulatory boxes.  But then again, I don’t have the resources to do that kind of analysis. 

Then yesterday, the Bureau issued this strongly worded admonishment warning mortgage servicers against being unprepared for an anticipated wave of troubled mortgages as forbearances come to an end.    In states like New York which already have imposed rigorous forbearance requirements, this warning comes across as somewhat duplicative, but you should still take the time to read it.  Again, I can’t help escape the feeling that financial institutions are being assumed guilty until proven innocent. 

Is there any way to prepare for the regulatory wave?  Document-document-document what you have done and why you have done it.  In addition, double check to make sure your policies and procedures are up to date; after all, between the GSEs, federal legislation, state legislation, the CFPB and state level regulators, there has been no shortage of regulatory mandates with which you must demonstrate familiarity even as you try to help out your member.      

While the vast majority of credit unions aren’t large enough to be directly subject to its supervisory oversight, as the ultimate interpreter of virtually every significant federal consumer protection law, the Bureau sets the tone for examiners throughout the country, particularly in states like New York which have developed state level consumer bureaus. 

What has me ticked-off this morning is that the Bureau has proclaimed that this avalanche of regulations is more important to enforce than allowing institutions to continue to work through the pandemic in good faith. 

Maybe the Bureau hasn’t read the news in the last couple of days, but the virus is still spreading.    

April 2, 2021 at 9:40 am Leave a comment

Governor Extends Vaccine Eligibility as CDC Extends Eviction Moratorium

In case you haven’t already heard, Governor Cuomo announced yesterday that starting today individuals 30 years and older can schedule vaccinations and individuals 16 years and older can start scheduling appointments on April 6th.

Is the CDC Guilty of Regulatory Overreach?

The Governor’s announcement came the same day that the Center for Disease Control announced that it would be extending a moratorium on evictions.  Aside from its practical significance, the CDC’s aggressive use of its regulatory authority may provide a vehicle for federal courts to further chip away at the judicial deference that has been afforded to agency determinations over the last 30 years.  As readers of this blog know, as the most heavily regulated financial institutions in the country, credit unions have a keen interest in any litigation dealing with the extent to which agencies can regulate in the absence of explicit congressional authority.

If you’re wondering why the CDC has the authority to block evictions in the first place, you are not alone.  Yesterday the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to issue a stay of a lower court ruling that ruled the CDC had exceeded its authority when it extended the eviction moratorium without Congressional authorization (Tiger Lily, LLC v United States Dept. of Hous. and Urban Dev., 21-5256, 2021 WL 1165170, at *3 [6th Cir Mar. 29, 2021]).  The ruling sets the stage for further litigation which may impact the status of evictions nationwide and could produce important rulings on how much authority agencies have to interpret federal laws.  Remember, that no matter what the court decides, states such as New York have the authority to issue eviction and foreclosure moratoriums and have done so.   

For those of you scoring at home (that’s a baseball reference since opening day is just two days away), in March of 2020 the CARES Act imposed an eviction moratorium that expired on July 25, 2020.  The CDC director extended this moratorium through December of last year.  Congress extended the moratorium until January 31st and when this authority expired, the CDC director extended the moratorium until March 31st and further extended it yesterday.  In exercising this authority, in the absence of congressional authorization, the director is relying on 42 USC § 264 which authorizes the CDC, acting through the Surgeon General to make and enforce regulations that “in his judgement are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases.”  The logic of the CDC is that, in the absence of a nationwide eviction moratorium an increase in homelessness and crowded living arrangements will contribute to the spread of the disease. 

In refusing to uphold the CDC’s previous order, the Sixth Circuit explained that “…we cannot read the Public Health Service Act to grant the CDC the power to insert itself into the landlord-tenant relationship without some clear, unequivocal textual evidence of Congress’s intent to do so. Regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship is historically the province of the states.”

NACHA Releases List of Top ODFIs

Just in time for this morning’s blog, Nacha has issued this press release detailing the most active financial institutions when it comes to ACH transactions over the past year.  This year’s statistics are more intriguing than usual because they provide a snapshot of how the pandemic has accelerated the trend towards electronic payment options.  According to Nacha the top 50 originating financial institutions processed more than $23B in payments last year, an 8.4% increase and the top 50 receiving institutions witnessed an 11% increase.  What I find intriguing about these numbers is how the ACH network continues to be dominated by a relative handful of financial institutions even as the Nacha network becomes more ubiquitous. 

March 30, 2021 at 9:55 am 1 comment

How is Your CU’s Diversity Initiative Coming Along?

As your credit  union emerges from the day-to-day demands of banking during a pandemic its time to start preparing for the issues that are going to impact its regulatory framework in the months and years to come as opposed to those concerns which will fade with the pandemic.

One of the key issues credit unions will continue to face in the coming years is fostering the diversity of their own workforces and boards.  The reckoning may not come as quickly as it will for larger institutions with more resources and spottier track records, but it is coming nonetheless.  

The Dodd-Frank Act included a mandate for financial regulators, including the NCUA, to establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) and survey industries on their diversity policies.  Participation is a voluntary but potentially potent weapon for policymakers.  Last week, for example, Representative Maxine Waters demanded that the largest banks do a better job of voluntarily submitting self-assessments of their diversity practices.  She, along with Congresswoman Beatty, stated in a letter to these financial institutions: “We are making progress to ensure a comprehensive understanding of diversity and inclusion performance in the financial services industry.  However, this cannot be achieved until organizations, especially the largest investment managers, disclose their diversity data and policies with the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion, Congress, and the public.”  The trend isn’t limited to the political branches.

Another less high profile example has to do with board management at the largest banks.  In late February the FRB issued a guidance on best practices for effective board oversight.  In the guidance it explained that an effective process for selecting board members “… considers a diverse pool of potential nominees, including women and minorities.”  The inclusion of this language in the final guidance is a not so subtle nudge for boards to examine their recruitment practices.   

Now, to be clear, neither of those two examples apply to credit unions but sooner or later, your credit union will be expected to have a robust system that maximizes diversity within its employment and leadership ranks. It’s another one of those initiatives that can either be thoughtfully implemented or hastily complied with.

New York Introduces A Cannabis Legalization Bill

Late Saturday night the legislature introduced this 113 page bill signaling that it had reached agreement on a framework for legalizing the use and sale of recreational marijuana in New York State.  The law also provides guidance on issues related to hemp.  Enjoy the reading.

March 29, 2021 at 9:21 am Leave a comment

New York Goes To Pot, What It Means For Your CU

With yesterday’s announcement that the Legislature reached agreement on legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in New York State, it is time for all credit unions to hurry up and wait when it comes to deciding how aggressively they are going to engage in this emerging field.  The hurry up part applies to all credit unions that, within months, will have to adjust HR policies, review BSA frameworks and generally engage their Boards so that everyone is in agreement on how to operate in this brave new world.  The wait part comes from the need to recognize that even as New York State goes forward with its plans, the stubborn fact remains that the sale and distribution of marijuana remains illegal as a matter of federal law, and that credit unions that ignore this reality are putting themselves at risk of serious legal, reputational and operational consequences.

There is no need to take my word for it.  Just the other day, the American Banker reported that Live Life Federal Credit Union was subject to this administrative order for its non-compliance in relation to its marijuana banking practices.  Among the deficiencies cited by NCUA was the credit union’s lack of automated systems to comply with its requirements to monitor red flags regarding Marijuana-Related Businesses as detailed by FinCEN. 

NCUA’s action is a well-timed cautionary tale to any New York credit union that rushes into the space.  No matter how legal marijuana is made on the State level, there are still numerous additional safeguards that must be put in place such as enhanced due diligence requirements and being able to periodically file up to three different types of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) on an ongoing basis.  And remember, you are dealing with a highly specialized business for which your credit union will have to have demonstrable expertise.  Last, but not least, certain Federal Reserve Banks have signaled an uneasiness to provide access to the Federal Reserve System to credit unions that engage in banking marijuana.  Clearly, this system needs to clarify where it stands on this issue.

But even with all these legitimate concerns, it is also time for your credit union to hurry up and start preparing for this new reality.  Even if your credit union decides it wants no part of marijuana banking, it will still have to determine its risk tolerance for banking individuals associated with this industry.  For example, if your credit union decides not to provide banking services to Marijuana-Related Businesses, will it extend this prohibition to employees of these businesses who come to the credit union for a mortgage loan? 

Then, of course, there are a multitude of HR issues.  Is your credit union prepared for the employee who claims that she needs to take marijuana during the day because of a medical condition?  And just how hard a line are you going to take against employees who appear to be working under the influence?  Will your stance change if there is no related diminution in their work product?  These are the type of issues that you can thoughtfully consider in the coming months or be forced to confront for the first time when they occur once recreational marijuana is legal.

March 25, 2021 at 8:59 am Leave a comment

If Your Credit Union’s Asset Size Is Between $50M & $500M, I Have Some Good and Bad News For You

 Good morning folks.  Thursday is the deadline for commenting on the first of several proposals dealing with various aspects of NCUA’s risk based net-worth requirements with which NCUA will be grappling in the coming months.  Trust me, I know there are better things to think about on a beautiful spring day than the arcane nuances of capital requirements, but the sense I get is that the industry has not focused as much attention on this key operational issue, even though for many CU’s it will have as big an impact if not bigger than the dreaded CECL.

12 USCA § 1790d has long required “complex” credit unions to satisfy Risk-Based Net Worth (RBNW) requirements in addition to the traditional Prompt Corrective Action to which all credit unions are subject.  This RBNW requirement applies to credit unions with $50M or more in assets.  Easy enough. 

As many of you know, for more than half a decade now, NCUA has debated augmenting this requirement with a Risk Based Capital (RBC) requirement. However, the board’s unease with this new framework has resulted in several tweaks and postponements.  Specifically in 2018 the NCUA decide to raise the RBC compliance threshold to $500M.  It also has postponed the effective date of the RBC framework until January 1, 2022. 

With the pending proposal that is out for comment until Thursday, NCUA is now raising the threshold for compliance with the erstwhile RBNW threshold from $50M to $500M.  Specifically, the proposed rule would provide that any risk-based net worth requirement will only be applicable to credit unions with quarter end assets in excess of $500M and a risk-based net worth requirement that exceeds 6%. 

NCUA is proposing this change in the context of its efforts to give credit unions more flexibility to deal with the impact that COVID-19 has had on capital.  For instance, in last Thursday’s board meeting, it proposed changing the date for determining if a credit union has exceeded $10B in assets and therefore must comply with NCUA’s stressed test requirements. 

But with or without the pandemic, raising the compliance threshold to $500M also reflects the reality of just how quickly the credit union industry is consolidating, a trend which has been exacerbated by the pandemic. According to the NCUA as of September 30, 2020 credit unions with assets between $50M and $500M account for 15.9% of industry assets and 33.8% of credit unions. The average asset size of a credit union in this cohort is $164M. Conversely, credit unions with assets greater than $500M account for 81.6% of industry assets and only 12.4% of total credit unions. 

In the meantime the NCUA has put out for comment suggested changes to its risk based capital requirements and expanded the use of subordinated debt for credit unions that will have to satisfy RBC requirements.  Yours truly remains convinced that the Board has never made a truly convincing argument for why this extensive new framework has to be put in place in the first place.  Maybe a new board will consider scraping the RBC framework all together. 

March 23, 2021 at 10:09 am Leave a comment

Are You In Compliance With The Durbin Amendment?

For an industry of debit card issuers the Durbin amendment is like a bad back; you can learn to live with it but there is always enough chronic pain to remind you that there is something a little off. So it is that once again the Amendment is back in the news and once again large debit card issuers and Visa are in the crosshairs of merchants and the Department of Justice: Here is why.

The Durbin amendment had two major components: First, it capped the interchange fees that financial institutions with $10B or more in assets could charge the merchants; secondly it required that all debit card issuers give merchants the ability to process payments through two unaffiliated networks (e.g. Visa and NYCE).  

The problem is that the system was designed in the ancient times of a decade ago when only futurists were talking about online shopping doing away with retail.  PIN based authentication to trigger Point-Of-Sale transactions has long been an industry standard.  However, PIN based authorization is of course not an option for the wine sipping, sweatpants wearing consumer buying toiletries online on a Friday night.  Networks such as NYCE can now process such transactions but critics argue that large issuers and the Visa networks have been slow to turn on these updated systems.  As explained in this blog “…there is a fundamental issue with Bank Identification Number (BIN) enablement, preventing the growth of PINless. In a nutshell, many issuers are not switching on PINless functionality when they issue bank cards, which means merchants are unable to use it for a large proportion of transactions. In our experience, a merchant is unlikely to be able to use PINless more than 50% of the time.”

Not surprisingly, this complaint has gotten the attention of Senator Durbin and Congressman Welch  who wrote this letter to the Federal Reserve urging it to take a look at whether large issuers and Visa are violating Durbin.

Of course, the Durbin amendment is only relevant to the extent that a transaction involves a debit card.  There are now FinTechs that specialize in scraping up a consumer’s financial information—with their permission— and allowing them to quickly provide this information to a wide range of businesses such as financial planners.  One of the leading companies in this area is Plaid.  Plaid has an ingenious business model in which it will allow consumers to replace debit card transactions with ACH payments.  It has a growing network of merchants who are willing to accept the occasional ACH transaction from individual consumers.  Suffice it to say, ACH transactions are a lot cheaper for merchants than are interchange fees.  Visa decided it was worth buying Plaid for $5B.  DOJ moved to block the deal and with the case on the verge of going to trial last summer, Visa and Plaid decided it was best to leave each other at the altar. 

The scrutiny is increasing.  The WSJ was one of several papers reporting on Friday that Visa is being investigated over its debit card practices.  With Senate democrats in control of hearing agendas, brace yourself for another round of payment processing investigations as merchants once again claim to be victimized by the debit card processing system.   Cue the violins.

March 22, 2021 at 10:00 am Leave a comment

There’s a New Old Sheriff in Town

In its latest step to underscore just how aggressively it intends to regulate consumer banking and products, the CFPB issued a statement rescinding an order issued by the CFPB in the waning days of the Trump administration which critics argued limited its ability to sue companies for abusive practices.  Normally, there is nothing noteworthy about an agency’s new leadership rescinding regulations put in place by an agency led by a different party, but the CFPB’s action impacts how it is going to use one of its biggest weapons in its regulatory arsenal. 

12 USCA § 5536 gives the CFPB its key civil enforcement powers.  Under the Dodd-Frank Act, it is unlawful for entities subject to CFPB’s jurisdiction

  • to offer or provide to a consumer any financial product or service not in conformity with Federal consumer financial law, or otherwise commit any act or omission in violation of a Federal consumer financial law; or
  • to engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice;

State laws had long given attorneys generals, and in states like New York, private parties the right to sue financial service providers for engaging in Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP).  In addition, the Federal Trade Commission has had the right to exercise similar powers for decades.  This traditional language wasn’t enough for Congress.  So when it drafted subdivision B, it added abusive to the list of potential wrongs. 

As readers of this blog know, every word matters and in extending the traditional UDAP powers to include abusive conduct, many a lawyer, and the occasional law professor were perplexed.  In fact, several lawsuits challenge the new standard as so vague that it did not give people adequate notice of what constituted illegal conduct.  The Bureau has beaten back these challenges [CFPB v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., No. 16-cv-356, 2018 WL 9812125, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 21, 2018)].  Since 2011 it has brought 32 enforcement actions that have had an abusiveness and unfairness claim but only two of those were predicated solely on abusiveness.

With these statistics in mind, reasonable people asked if an abusiveness standard could really be distinguished from an act which is deceptive and unfair? After all, in testimony before Congress Director Richard Cordray explained “[W]e have determined that [the definition of ‘abusive’] is going to have to be a fact and circumstances issue; it is not something we are likely to be able to define in the abstract. Probably not useful to try to define a term like that in the abstract.”  While I admire the director’s honesty, this is hardly the type of statement that companies investing millions of dollars in complying with a new set of highly nuanced regulations wants to hear. 

Which brings us to the reason for today’s blog.  As one of her last acts, Director Kathy Kraninger issued a policy statement explaining that the bureau had to do a better job of explaining when conduct was abusive.  The statement explained that it would also not penalize good faith attempts to comply with the standard and most importantly would not use abusiveness as the sole criteria for a civil action. 

In repealing this statement, the bureau announced yet again that like Reggie Hammond in the classic movie 48 Hours, there’s a new sheriff in town.  He’s not going to unilaterally take any of his enforcement powers off the table. 

“In particular, the policy of declining to seek certain types of monetary relief for abusive acts or 10 85 FR at 6735-36. 11 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(2). 5 practices—specifically civil money penalties and disgorgement—is contrary to the Bureau’s current priority of achieving general deterrence through penalties and other monetary remedies and of compensating victims for harm caused by violations of the Federal consumer financial laws through the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund. Likewise, adhering to a policy that disfavors citing or alleging conduct as abusive when that conduct is also unfair or deceptive is contrary” to Congressional intent. 

Suffice it to say, regulation by enforcement is back with a vengeance.  Make sure you pay attention to the Bureau’s enforcement actions and the legal rationale underpinning their decisions. 

March 17, 2021 at 10:29 am Leave a comment

Older Posts


Authored By:

Henry Meier, Esq., Senior Vice President, General Counsel, New York Credit Union Association.

The views Henry expresses are Henry’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association. In addition, although Henry strives to give his readers useful and accurate information on a broad range of subjects, many of which involve legal disputes, his views are not a substitute for legal advise from retained counsel.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 711 other followers

Archives