NY Regulator Reaches $33 Million Settlement With MUFG Bank Over Alleged State Violations
The agreement settles a lawsuit brought against DFS by MUFG two years ago when the agency sought to enforce the state's regulations against the bank, which had swiftly converted its New York branch to a federal charter months earlier.
June 24, 2019 at 06:32 PM
4 minute read
MUFG Bank, the largest bank in Japan, will pay the state Department of Financial Services $33 million to settle claims related to its conduct while it was regulated by the state, the agency said Monday evening.
The agreement settles a lawsuit brought against DFS by MUFG two years ago when the agency sought to enforce the state's regulations against the bank, which had swiftly converted its New York branch to a federal charter months earlier.
DFS had argued that, even though MUFG had switched its branch over to federal oversight, it was still responsible for any violations of New York's laws and regulations while chartered by the state. The agency has less regulatory power over financial institutions that are licensed by the federal government, rather than the state.
The New York Attorney General's Office, arguing on behalf of DFS, had countered the lawsuit from MUFG with that point and also claimed the bank's quick switch from state oversight to a federal charter was unlawful and arbitrary. Negotiations ensued, ending in the settlement announced Monday.
DFS Superintendent Linda Lacewell said in a statement that the agreement is a nod to the country's dual banking system.
“DFS is pleased to have reached an appropriate agreement with the bank to end this litigation,” Lacewell said. “Today's settlement reinforces the strength of our nation's dual banking system and significantly reaffirms New York's authority to vigorously protect our financial markets and consumers.”
A spokesman for MUFG said the company was similarly pleased to put the litigation to bed.
“MUFG Bank is pleased to have resolved its legal disputes with the New York DFS,” the spokesman said. “The settlement allows us to move forward with our simplified regulatory structure in the U.S.”
The settlement isn't the first time the bank has had to pay New York state in recent years. It was fined a combined $565 million by the state between 2013 and 2014 for violating state and federal sanctions statutes.
Despite those penalties, MUFG continued to skirt the state's laws, DFS alleged early last year in response to the bank's lawsuit. The agency alleged that the bank had failed to comply with the consent orders it agreed to as part of the earlier penalties and was still violating the state's sanctions laws.
Months earlier, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had approved the bank to transfer its oversight to the federal government, away from the state. The application was approved eight days after it was filed with the federal agency, according to DFS.
But regardless of whether that approval was lawful, DFS had argued that any violations committed by the bank prior to the switch should still be eligible for enforcement by the New York agency.
“No bank or financial institution (or anyone else) is permitted to avoid responsibility for its prior illegal conduct by moving jurisdiction from a state-licensed entity to a federally-licensed entity (or between states),” the agency wrote in its response last year. “[MUFG] willfully and repeatedly violated New York law and two DFS consent orders while it was operating under a license issued by the State of New York and under DFS's jurisdiction.”
The settlement is not an admission by MUFG of any wrongdoing and won't settle the question of whether the bank's transfer from state to federal oversight was lawful. But it ends the bank's litigation against the state and in turn dismisses the state's counterclaims.
MUFG was represented in the litigation by attorneys with firms Sullivan & Cromwell and Covington & Burling, according to the settlement.
READ MORE:
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
© 2024 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 AllThe Lawyers Picked (So Far) by Trump for Key Roles in His Second Administration
5 minute readNY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
The American Disabilities Act, Sovereign Immunity and Individual Liability
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 111 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
- 2In-House Moves of Month: Discover Fills Awkward CLO Opening, Allegion GC Lasts Just 3 Months
- 3Delaware Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 4'Go 12 Rounds' or Settle: Rear-End Collision Leads to $2.25M Presuit Settlement
- 52 Federal Judges Rescind Senior Status After Trump Win. Might More Follow?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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