Masks, Robberies and Negligent Security Lawsuits—a COVID Quandary for Banks
Banks across the nation have walked back their requirements banning face-coverings from their establishments and have mandated masks to mitigate the spread of the disease.
January 21, 2021 at 12:15 PM
6 minute read
In the name of safety and security, it is a long-standing rule that face coverings are not allowed in banks. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced banks to broaden their definition of security and safety. Banks across the nation have walked back their requirements banning face-coverings from their establishments and have mandated masks to mitigate the spread of the disease. From a public health security perspective, this is undoubtedly in the best interest of both their employees and their patrons. Yet, the negative externalities that result from these new requirements—temporary as we hope they may be—must be considered. As indicated by the Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian P. Brooks, masks create the "very real risk of increases in bank robberies." See Letter from Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks to Mayor Bryan K.Barnett and Tom Cochrane (Jun. 1, 2020), at 2, //www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2020/nr-occ-2020-73a.pdf.
It is our law firm's experience that when there is a financial institution robbery, there is an increased chance of harm to an innocent customer.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Data Disposition—Conquering the Seemingly Unscalable Mountain
- 2Who Are the Judges Assigned to Challenges to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order?
- 3Litigators of the Week: A Directed Verdict Win for Cisco in a West Texas Patent Case
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Womble Bond Becomes First Firm in UK to Roll Out AI Tool Firmwide
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250