Financial Services Blog

Showing 9 posts in Federal.

Fintech Companies are No Longer in “Uncharted” Territory

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a subset of the U.S. Treasury Department, recently announced that it will create a special purpose national bank charter specifically for financial technology (fintech) companies. This announcement comes on the heels of the rapid rise in fintech and in the number of companies that use such technology. An official charter aims to supervise the more than 4,000 fintech companies more closely and provide a framework for new companies to operate in the financial services industry.  Read More ›

CFPB ARBITRATION RULE: What You Need to Know Now

On May 5, 2016, the CFPB unveiled a proposed arbitration rule which would dramatically limit the contractual rights of financial institutions. Under the rule certain arbitration provisions would be unenforceable as bars to class actions against financial institutions.   Read More ›

Helpful to Bankers? Changes to the TCPA of Particular Concern to Financial Institutions

On July 10, 2015, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) came out with new rules interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protective Act (TCPA). Read More ›

Fed’s Advice to Community Banks on Bitcoin: “Proceed … with Caution”

Community Banks need to be aware of the risks posed by cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, because their prevalence will only increase, writes the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.  Wallace Young, the Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, in the recent article “What Community Bankers Should Know About Virtual Currencies” in Community Banking Connections, outlines four risks undertaken by community banks that interact with businesses in the virtual currency ecosystem: Compliance, Reputational, Credit, and Operational. Read More ›


In State ex rel. U.S. Bank National Association v.  McGraw, Frost Brown Todd recently assisted in obtaining a dismissal, with prejudice, of a putative class action filed by Wyoming County, West Virginia claiming that the use of the private corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., commonly known as “MERS”, as the designee for assignments of deeds of trust in West Virginia violates state law and unjustly enriched the trustees of various mortgage backed security trusts. Wyoming County asserted that the use of MERS (1) undermines the integrity of the counties’ real property records, to the detriment of an open and vibrant real estate market, (2) fails to provide transferees in the MERS registry with adequate perfection of the debts secured by the trust deeds, (3) deprives the counties of revenue, and (4) unjustly enriches the trustees through the nonpayment of recording fees. Read More ›

What Financial Institutions Need To Know About IRS Form 1042-S

IRS Form 1042-S is a tax form for foreign individuals reporting income from a United States based source.  Recent federal law requires that all United States financial institutions file a Form 1042-S for foreign customers earning interest on their United States accounts.  The filing of Form 1042-S by financial institutions is not discretionary, and the failure to tender the form when required may face a compliance penalty.  The purpose of the form is to report interest earned on the non-resident alien fiduciary or foreign corporation’s account with the financial institution.    Read More ›

Sixth Circuit Allows RICO Claims to Proceed Based on Inflated Appraisal

In Wallace v. Midwest Fin. & Mortg. Serv., No. 12-5208, 2013 WL 1729587 (6th Cir. April 23, 2013), Harold Wallace, a subprime mortgage borrower, brought suit against, among others, the lender (MortgageIT) and the broker (Midwest Financial),  claiming that the defendants fraudulently appraised the value of his home to force him into a high-cost, adjustable rate mortgage.  The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Wallace had not shown that the fraudulent appraisal proximately caused his injuries.   Read More ›

HUD Sets Uniform Standard for Evaluating Discriminatory Effect Claims

Last month, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued a formal rule relating to housing discrimination that went into effect Monday, March 18, 2013.[1] The Fair Housing Act, as codified in 42 USC 45, “prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of dwellings and in other housing-related activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.”[2] For decades, HUD has interpreted this language to prohibit not just overtly discriminatory practices, but also those “with an unjustified discriminatory effect, regardless of whether there was an intent to discriminate.”[3]  The eleven circuits that have addressed the issue have all concurred, but, over the years, have developed slightly different “methodolog[ies] of proving a claim of discriminatory effects liability.”[4]  In order to establish uniformity in interpretation and application of discriminatory effects liability,[5] HUD issued the new rule entitled “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discrimination Effects Standard” (the “Rule”).[6] Read More ›


On January 14, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) applies to foreclosures, even non-judicial foreclosures, of residential property.  The law firm of Reimer, Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey Co., LPA and two of its attorneys (“RACJ”) were sued for foreclosing on a home for improperly alleging that JPMorgan had conveyed, assigned and transferred all of its rights in a promissory note to Chase Home Finance LLC (“Chase”), an arm of JPMorgan.  Also sued were JP Morgan and Chase. In fact, the Note had already been assigned to Fannie Mae, although the loan was serviced by JP Morgan and subsequently Chase.  The Sixth Circuit held the FDCPA claims could proceed against RACJ based on the improper assertions of ownership of the Note by Chase.  Mortgage foreclosure, including non-judicial foreclosures, was deemed to equal debt collection under the Act.  However, the servicer, Chase, was not liable because the FDCPA only applies to a debt collector, and at the time the loan was assigned to Chase, the Note was not in default.  The Sixth Circuit’s Opinion is also consistent with the Third and Fourth Circuit of the Court of Appeals.  However, a number of district courts have disagreed with this result, instead analyzing foreclosures as the enforcement of security interests rather than the collection of a debt.  The Sixth Circuit concluded that other than repossession agencies and their agents, it could think of no others whose only role in the collection process is the enforcement of the security interest. Read More ›

Ask the Blogger

Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.

Attorney Spotlight

Christopher C. Tieke is an associate in Frost Brown Todd's Louisville office, focusing his practice on business litigation. He graduated from the University of Cincinnati College of Law, with magna cum laude honors; served as an Associate Member of the University of Cincinnati Law Review; and participated in the Entrepreneurship and Community Development Clinic.