PA Amends Money Transmission Business Licensing Law

Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Banking and Securities, Robin L. Wiessmann, issued guidance to businesses engaged in money transmission to inform them of significant changes that will be required for their businesses as a result of amendments to the Money Transmission Business Licensing Law. Governor Tom Wolf signed the changes into law on November 3, 2016 (Act 129 of 2016) and the new law became effective on January 2, 2017.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

CFPB Unveils Web-based Tool To Deliver Regular Updates on Consumer Lending Markets

On December 19, the CFPB announced the release of “Consumer Credit Trends,” a beta version of its new web-based tool to help the public monitor developments in the mortgage, credit card, auto loan, and student loan markets. According to the Bureau, the data used by Consumer Credit Trends “draws from a nationally representative sample of credit records maintained by one of the top three U.S. credit repositories.” The CFPB plans to update this information regularly, and will offer analyses on notable findings as warranted. It also clarifies that “before being provided to the Bureau,” the credit records are “stripped of any information that might reveal consumers’ identities, such as names, addresses, and Social Security numbers.” The ability to “chart the state of consumer markets,” says CFPB Director Richard Cordray, “will help us identify and act on trends that warn of another crisis or that show credit is too constricted.”

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

US Court Rejects DocuSign e-Signatures as Method to Provide Digital Authorization

Back in July, the United States bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of California held that under its local rules, an attorney submitting electronically signed documents for filing with the court must maintain an originally signed document in paper form bearing a “wet” signatureIn re Mayfield, No. 16-22134-D-7, 2016 WL 3958982 (U.S. Bankr. Ct. E.D. Cal.).  The United States Trustee (UST) filed a motion for sanctions against a debtor’s attorney who used the an electronic signature platform to have the debtor execute certain documents that were subsequently filed with the court.  The court’s local rules 9004-1(C) and (D) provide that if these documents were executed with a “software-generated electronic signature,” the submitting attorney is required to maintain “an originally signed document in paper form” and produce it upon request by the UST.   When asked by the UST to produce the original signed versions of the documents he filed, the debtor’s attorney was unable to do so.  In response to the motion, the debtor’s attorney argued that the requirements of 9004-1(C) and (D) did not apply because the electronic signatures were manually created by the debtor’s actions taken on the electronic signature platform.  As such, they were not “software-generated electronic signatures” within the meaning of the rule, and under the federal ESIGN Act constituted “original” signatures.

Ultimately, the court held that: (i) the ESIGN Act was not applicable because of the express exemption for court rules at 15 USC § 7003(b)(1), thereby permitting the court to establish and interpret its own rules with respect to electronic signatures, (ii) the electronic signatures created using the platform were within the meaning of the term “software-generated electronic signature” under the local rules, and (iii) the local rule’s reference to “an originally signed document in paper form” required the attorney to also maintain a copy of the document bearing a “wet ink” signature.  Accordingly, the Court granted the UST’s motion and, as the sanction imposed, required the debtor’s attorney to certify completion of the court’s online e-filing training course.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

CFPB Releases Student Banking Report Examining Credit Card Marketing Deals Targeting College Students

On December 14, the CFPB released a student banking report analyzing roughly 500 marketing agreements between colleges, universities and affiliated organizations, and large banks in an effort to identify trends in the school-sponsored credit card market. The report found in part that while credit cards offered in conjunction with educational institutions have declined since the CARD Act was enacted in 2009, many similar offers and deals still exist and may include features that lead students to rack up hundreds of dollars in fees. As explained by CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman Seth Frotman, “Colleges across the country continue to make deals with banks to promote products that have high fees, despite the availability of safer and more affordable products.” According to Mr. Frotman, “Students shouldn’t get stuck with the bill when their school inks a deal for an account that’s not in their best interest.”

In conjunction with the publication of this report, the Bureau also published a new compliance bulletin to assist colleges in understanding their obligations under the CARD Act and Regulation Z related to college credit card agreements. This bulletin noted, among other items, that many of the largest colleges and universities do not publish credit card agreements on their websites or make them available to students and the public upon request, creating increased risks of non-compliance. The complete set of credit card agreement data collected by the Bureau in accordance with its obligations under the Credit CARD Act of 2009 can be accessed here.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Fed Report Provides Information on Debit Card Transactions in 2015

On November 30, the Fed announced the release of its annual report on debit card transactions in 2015. The report is the fourth in a series to be published every two years pursuant to Section 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). As in prior years, the 2015 report reflected that issuers’ costs of authorizing, clearing, and settling debit card transactions (excluding issuer fraud losses) varied greatly across respondents. Data compiled in the report estimates that debit-card fraud losses to all parties (merchants, cardholders, and issuers) increased by 44 percent from 2013 to an estimated total of $2.41 billion in 2015. The median covered issuer had average fraud prevention and data security costs of 1.9 cents per transaction.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share