NY Regulator's Lawsuit Derails Federal Push to Charter Fintech Companies
Division of Financial Services Superintendent Linda Lacewell said the court's decision to invalidate the regulation will allow certain companies to be more stringently regulated by state officials.
October 22, 2019 at 02:46 PM
5 minute read
A federal regulation that would have allowed the Trump administration to essentially label certain fintech—or financial technology—companies as banks and allow them to avoid certain state regulations was struck down in a decision from a federal judge in Manhattan late Monday.
The decision is the result of a lawsuit from the New York State Department of Financial Services, which had claimed the regulation would harm consumers.
The regulation, which was promulgated by the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, would have allowed fintech companies that don't receive deposits, like payday lenders, to switch their supervising agency from DFS to the OCC.
That would have allowed those companies to largely avoid certain regulations promulgated by DFS and other state agencies. They would, instead, be largely supervised by the OCC.
DFS Superintendent Linda Lacewell said the court's decision to invalidate the regulation will allow those companies to be more stringently regulated by state officials.
"This decision makes the financial well-being of consumers from New York and around the country a priority," Lacewell said. "It reflects the rational conclusion that DFS and other state banking regulators have the expertise to provide the strict supervisory oversight and enforcement of anti-money laundering and consumer protection statutes and regulations that non-depository financial service providers are required to follow."
Representatives from the OCC said they plan to seek an appeal of the decision to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
"The agency disagrees with the decision and the court's interpretation of the authority the National Bank Act grants the OCC," the OCC said. "The agency plans to appeal the ruling to resolve this issue."
Attorneys for DFS and the OCC had actually negotiated a stipulated final judgement in favor of the state agency, but submitted competing versions to the court for a final decision.
While DFS was seeking to have the regulation set aside nationally, the OCC pitched a more narrow result to U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York, who's presided over the case since it was filed last year.
Attorneys for the OCC wrote in their proposal that the regulation should only be set aside for fintech companies that don't accept deposits but also have a nexus to New York state. That could mean they're chartered in New York or intend to do business in New York.
Under that proposal, the regulation would still be valid for fintech companies that aren't tied to New York state. Attorneys for the OCC wrote that, under their proposal, no harm would come to New York state.
"The allegations in the complaint demonstrate that DFS's alleged injuries, and thus any remedies to which it is entitled are limited to New York state," the OCC wrote. "Indeed, courts regularly vacate agency actions only in part, tailoring the remedy to match the agency's error."
Marrero, in his decision, did not address the various arguments of the OCC, but rejected them outright based on his previous rulings in the case. Earlier this year, Marrero rejected a motion from the OCC to dismiss the lawsuit, finding DFS had standing to bring the challenge.
Attorneys for the OCC had since failed to persuade him to come to a different result, Marrero wrote.
"The Court finds that OCC has failed to identify a persuasive reason to deviate from ordinary administrative law procedure on this score," Marrero wrote.
The issue of the case was over how financial institutions are regulated between the federal government and the states. Entities chartered by a state agency, like DFS, are generally also subject to federal regulations. But those that obtain a federal charter are largely supervised exclusively by the OCC, meaning they can avoid certain state regulations.
Under the current regulatory scheme, financial entities that do not receive deposits, like payday lenders and other fintech companies, are largely left up to states to regulate. DFS was concerned that, if allowed, the federal regulation would prompt more entities to escape state oversight by seeking a federal charter.
Lacewell said the decision handed down Tuesday by Marrero will prevent that possibility.
"The decision stops OCC's attempt to usurp state authority by establishing a federal fintech regulatory framework at the expense of consumers," Lacewell said. "Going forward, DFS will continue to be a fierce advocate for consumers in New York and nationwide."
The OCC had defended the regulation in court by saying it complied with a section of the National Banking Act that allows financial institutions to apply for federal charters if they're in the "business of banking."
DFS had countered that argument, saying that fintech companies are not in the "business of banking" because they don't receive deposits. Marrero agreed with that point in his decision earlier this year.
"The Court finds that the term 'business of banking,' as used in the NBA, unambiguously requires receiving deposits as an aspect of the business," Marrero wrote.
It was the second time DFS sued the OCC over the regulation. The state's legal challenge was dismissed the first time around because the court said the agency lacked standing at the time.
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 AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
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