NY Suit Against OCC Could Delay Regulatory Clarity for Fintech Companies
But New York's Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria Vullo again filed a lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that could further delay national regulation of fintech companies, lawyers said. DFS previously filed a suit hoping to block the OCC charter, but it was dismissed as premature last December.
September 17, 2018 at 04:37 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Financial technology companies have long sought regulatory clarity on a federal scale—and they almost had it, with the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's July announcement that it would accept national bank charter applications from nondepository fintech companies.
But New York's Department of Financial Services' suit, Vullo v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 18-cv-8377, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, could further delay national regulation, some practitioners said. DFS previously filed a suit last year hoping to block the OCC charter but federal Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald dismissed the the suit in December, saying it was premature.
Maria Vullo, the superintendent of New York's DFS, said in Friday's complaint that the fintech charter decision is “lawless, ill-conceived, and destabilizing of financial markets” and that it “puts New York financial consumers—and often the most vulnerable ones—at great risk of exploitation by federally-chartered entities.” The lawsuit argues that the OCC cannot offer national bank charters to fintech companies because, if they are not banks, the OCC does not have the authority to regulate them. Vullo and the DFS had no additional comment Monday. Vullo asked the court to bar the OCC from implementing the federal court's decision in July to start accepting applications for charters. Other states have also indicated their intention to refile similar lawsuits.
The OCC insists that it does have the authority to regulate fintechs. “The agency is confident in its authority to grant national bank charters, including special purpose national bank charters, to companies that are engaged in the business of banking, meet the qualifications for becoming a national bank, and apply to conduct business as part of the federal banking system,” said the OCC's director of public affairs Bryan Hubbard in a statement Monday. “The agency will vigorously defend that authority, but will not comment on pending or potential litigation.”
Catherine Brennan, a partner at Hudson Cook in Hanover, Maryland who works with national and state banks and financial companies, said on Monday, “whether or not New York is successful, they have a victory in that they have set the line with regard to what it wants from companies it might regulate in New York State.”
Brennan continued, “New York State is obviously a huge financial market and there will be some fintech companies that would be discouraged from even considering the OCC charter because of the DFS action. Anyone at a fintech company will need to weigh in the worth of the charter versus getting involved in a legal dispute with the Department” of Financial Services.
Companies who may have been drawn toward the OCC charter may now wait and see how the suit plays out before sinking resources into it, she said.
The charter would allow fintech companies to be regulated more like a bank on a national scale. Currently, most fintech companies operate under state regulations that vary in each jurisdiction. The confusion that stems from that can make business difficult and be a competitive disadvantage on a global scale, said Jeffrey Alberts, a Pryor Cashman partner who co-heads the firm's financial institutions group.
“A lot of fintech companies are frustrated about the fact that they're currently subject to regulation by dozens of different state regulators and they are excited about the possibility that with the OCC fintech charter there would be one regulator, and they would be able to deal with just that one regulator and just that one set of regulations,” he said.
But Alberts, like Brennan, said the DFS suit could be a roadblock for fintech companies who had sought the national bank charter. It's not clear whether the national charter would be available long term.
“Now that the DFS has sued the OCC, I think fintech companies are reluctant to invest resources into getting that charter because they won't know what the status of this pre-emption is,” Alberts said. “In essence, until the solution is resolved, they would be subject to regulation both by the OCC and by the states, and wouldn't know who ultimately was going to win.”
Alberts added there have been concerns raised by traditional banks that the national charter will give fintech companies a competitive advantage, as it would allow the latter to operate with lower capital requirements under its regulation.
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 All'We’re Here to Empower People to Make Good Decisions': Why Compliance Chiefs Must Learn to Think Like a Businessperson
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Legal Departments’ Lack of Third-Party Oversight Leaving Small, Midsized Banks Exposed
4 minute readInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
Trending Stories
- 1Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 2Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 3Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 4UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 5Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
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