MVA White Collar Defense, Investigations, and Regulatory Advice Blog

On January 23, 2025, the United States Supreme Court ruled on McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., granting the Government’s application to stay the injunction of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) initially ordered by the Eastern District of Texas. Despite this order, the CTA is still on hold due to a separate nationwide order issued by a different federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas in Samantha Smith and Robert Means vs. U.S. Department of Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336 (E.D. Texas 1/7/2025), which stayed the effective date of the CTA reporting rule nationwide while the lawsuit is pending.

For followers of developments related to National Bank Act (NBA) preemption and the United States Supreme Court’s related decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 602 U.S. 205 (2024), the waning days of 2024 proved noteworthy. On December 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “District Court”) applied Cantero’s principles for evaluating claims of NBA preemption of state law and granted a preliminary injunction from enforcement of Illinois’s Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (the “IFPA” or, the “Act”) against national banks and federal savings associations. Illinois Bankers Association et. al. v. Raoul, No. 24 C 7307, 202 WL 5186840 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2024).  Only a few days later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Ninth Circuit”) withdrew its August 2024 decision that had affirmed its 2022 decision that the NBA did not preempt California’s interest on escrow (IOE) law, indicating it would schedule oral arguments and requesting supplemental briefing by the parties to address whether the IOE law was preempted “under the standard and methodology” announced in Cantero.  Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, No. 21-15667, 2024 WL 5206133 (9^th Cir. Dec. 24, 2024). These developments gave us the first reasoned lower court opinion applying Cantero and set the stage for potentially three circuit courts (the First, Second and Ninth) to explicitly address and apply Cantero in 2025.   

Following up on our most recent blog post on developments regarding the enforcement date for the Corporate transparency Act (“CTA”), on December 26, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Panel that will ultimately be handling the merits of the appeal from the District Court issued an order vacating another order by a different Fifth Circuit panel on December 23, 2024 that had stayed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’ nationwide injunction on the beneficial ownership reporting obligations under the CTA. The aim of the rapid reversal is to preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the parties’ weighty substantive arguments.

Following up on our most recent blog post on developments regarding the enforcement date for the CTA, on the afternoon of December 23, 2024, the Fifth Circuit issued its order staying the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas' nationwide injunction on the beneficial ownership reporting obligations under the CTA.

As a result, the reporting obligations under the CTA are now back in effect except to the extent enjoined for plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.), with all entities existing prior to 2024 and all entities formed in 2024 being required to file. Recognizing that reporting companies may need additional time in light of the injunction previously in effect, FinCEN will require entities existing prior to 2024 and entities formed in September, 2024 who would have had to file during the period when the injunction was in effect to file their initial BOIR before January 13, 2025 (instead of before January 1, 2025 as originally required). Entities formed on or after December 3, 2024, which would have had to file within 90 days of formation have an additional 21 days to file (111 days in total in which to file).  See https://www.fincen.gov/boi for the full update.

We are continuing to monitor the situation, and will provide further updates when they become available.

As discussed in our prior blog post, on December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“District Court”) issued an order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act and the associated beneficial ownership information reporting rules (the “CTA”) nationwide (the “preliminary injunction”).

On December 3, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“Court”) entered a sweeping order enjoining enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act and the associated beneficial ownership information reporting rules (the “CTA”) nationwide. The immediate effect: notwithstanding the CTA’s stated reporting deadline of December 31, 2024, no entity is currently required to file with the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) information about itself, its owners or the persons otherwise controlling the entity.

With the amount of commercial real estate loans scheduled for maturity over the next several years expected to increase significantly, there is accompanying heightened risk that some borrowers may be unable to replace their maturing debt with new debt under reasonable terms and prevailing market conditions (refinance risk).  On October 3, 2024, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) issued OCC Bulletin 2024-29, which provides guidance to banks in the management of credit risk associated with refinancing commercial loans.  The bulletin, which applies to all banks with commercial loan portfolios, outlines that refinance risk affects both individual loan transactions and loan portfolios and can be driven by both external and borrower-specific factors. The bulletin highlights the need for banks to have related risk management processes that are appropriate for their size, complexity, risk profile and loan types. 

On October 2, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced it had settled enforcement proceedings against Thrivent Investment Management, Inc. (“Thrivent”), a SEC dually-registered broker-dealer and investment adviser, stemming from Thrivent’s alleged failure to update a calculator tool utilized by its representatives to determine which shares in certain 529 College Savings Plans are recommended to its retail customers.

On Sunday, September 29, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed California Senate Bill 1047, which would have established novel safety regulations on large artificial intelligence (AI) models.  Known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, SB 1047 would have required developers of covered models, which are defined to include only large, high-cost and power-intensive AI models, to, among other things.

On June 6, 2023, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC, and collectively with the Board and the FDIC, the Agencies) issued their final version of the Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Relationships: Risk Management (the Final Guidance). The Final Guidance is intended to promulgate effective risk management practices by banking organizations with respect to all of their third-party relationships.  

The Final Guidance replaces each ...

When following supervisory scrutiny of fees charged to bank customers, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) activities are often the focus. The Minnesota Bankers Association and Lake Central Bank of Minnesota, however, have recently filed a lawsuit against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Martin Gruenberg (in his capacity as the FDIC’s Chairman) seeking, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief from the FDIC’s application or enforcement of its recent supervisory guidance on non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees (the ...

On June 28, the CFBP released a set of FAQ’s on the CFPB’s recently finalized Small Business Lending Rule (“Section 1071”). There are twenty-one questions covering matters under “Institutional Coverage” and “Covered Credit Transactions and Small Businesses”. The FAQs are particularly helpful when considering short-term loans, affiliation considerations, and extensions of credit to individuals that may be in-scope for Section 1071.

On June 1, six Federal financial regulatory agencies[1] (Agencies) jointly issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the Proposed Rule) requiring the implementation of quality control standards for the use of automated valuation models (AVMs) to estimate the value of real estate. The standards would apply to AVMs used by mortgage originators and secondary market issuers in determining the collateral value of a mortgage secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling. The rulemaking was required by Section 1473(q) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ...

Executive Summary

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) has published a final rule implementing the requirements of Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Final Rule”), which mandated data collection on certain credit applications to facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws and the identification of business and community development needs and opportunities for women-owned, minority-owned, and Small Businesses. Section 1071 directed the CFPB to implement rules necessary to carry out, enforce, and compile these data collection ...

In December 2021, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (or the “CFPB”) issued a notice and request for comment (the “Notice”) on its intention to make a preemption determination regarding the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and the State of New York’s Commercial Financing Law, which imposes disclosure requirements on certain commercial lending transactions (the “New York CFL”). The preemption determination had been requested by the Small Business Finance Association (the “SBFA”), a non-profit advocacy organization for its members who provide ...

On August 11, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a circular (Circular 2022-04 or, the “Circular”) addressing whether insufficient data and information security practices can violate the prohibition against unfair acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”). The CFPB concluded that inadequate security practices could give rise to a claim not only under federal data security laws like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), but also under the CFPA as well. The Circular discusses the elements of a claim under the CFPA and identifies a few specific practices that the CFPB identified as likely giving rise to a violation of the CFPA. The Circular, however, does not otherwise provide direction to the industry on expected information security practices.

For those tracking developments impacting the crypto-asset space, the summer has been far from slow and leisurely. Multiple industry alerts flow daily with news of new legislative proposals, enforcement actions, and other events or issues impacting the industry. The news is inevitably accompanied by calls for greater legal certainty regarding crypto-asset characterization and clarity around the regulatory framework governing the industry. While news flows quickly, the pace of substantive developments, however, has been frustratingly slow for many. Unmoved by demands for ...

On June 8, 2022, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) released industry guidance applicable to U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins issued by NYDFS-regulated entities (the “Guidance”). The Guidance focuses on NYDFS requirements relating to the redeemability of these stablecoins, the asset reserves that back them (the “Reserves”), and auditor examination and attestations regarding management’s assertions concerning the sufficiency of the Reserves.  

By way of background, a stablecoin is a type of digital asset that is intended to ...

In the fourteen years since the 2008 financial crisis, significant actions have been taken by Federal banking agencies to make the largest financial institutions more resilient and less likely to fail and to require planning that would facilitate their orderly resolution, if necessary. These risk mitigation measures are tailored, however, with the most stringent requirements, and highest regulatory expectations, appropriately reserved for the eight U.S. banks designated as posing the greatest risk to financial stability (global systemically important banks, or GSIBs ...

Late last year, news services reported on the results of the efforts of a black couple living in Northern California to challenge what they believed was an initial, discriminatory low-ball appraisal of their home. To test their theory, the couple “whitewashed” their home by removing artwork and replacing family photos with those of a white neighbor, who acted as the homeowner during a second appraisal from another company. The couple filed a discrimination lawsuit against the initial appraiser after the second appraisal came in almost half a million dollars higher. Recent ...

President Biden signed an executive order today setting forth an agenda across the U.S. government to address risks related to cryptocurrencies while encouraging continued innovation around digital assets and funds transfer and payment systems. The order represents an acknowledgement by the Biden administration of the prevalence of cryptocurrencies in the U.S. and global economies and their ability to facilitate access to financial services within traditionally underserved communities. The order conveys a need for the U.S. to keep up with these technological advances ...

Congress has voted to overturn the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (“OCC’s”) “true lender” rule under the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”), and the President has signed the resolution. Repeal of the “true lender” rule under the CRA prevents the OCC from issuing any substantially similar rule unless authorized by law to do so.  

The True Lender Rule, which became effective December 29, 2020, provided that a bank would be deemed to have made a loan if, on the date of its origination, the bank either (1) is named as the lender in the loan agreement, or (2) funds ...