US – Page 11 – FinTech and Blockchain Law Watch

The U.S. Wants a Sandbox Too

Nov 03 2016

On September 22, 2016, Republican Congressman Patrick McHenry from North Carolina announced the introduction of H.R. 6118, the Financial Services Innovation Act of 2016 (the “Bill”). McHenry is the chief deputy whip and vice chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. According to the press release, the bill was introduced as part of the “Innovation Initiative” that McHenry co-launched earlier this year with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a fellow Republican from California. On October 19, 2016, the Bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit. Before the Bill becomes law in the United States, it must be past by both chambers of Congress and signed by the President. With this Bill, America joins, among others, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and Malaysia in establishing FinTech regulatory sandboxes.

In its current form, the Bill takes a two-prong approach to constructing a regulatory sandbox. First, it creates a government-wide FinTech oversight regime, and second, it codifies an exclusive no-action relief mechanism for financial innovators. Under the first prong, the Bill requires federal regulators to adopt a mandate to encourage innovation in the financial industry through the creation of Financial Services Innovation Offices (“FSIOs”). Further, the Bill provides for the establishment of the FSIO Liaison Committee (“Committee”) comprised of the directors of each agency’s FSIO. The purpose of the Committee is to coordinate the regulation of companies seeking to bring new and innovative financial technologies to market (“Covered Persons”). Under the second prong, Covered Persons may petition regulators for an alternative compliance plan under an “enforceable compliance agreement,” that will provide the conditions under which the Covered Person may implement their financial innovation (including any regulatory waivers).

The future of Fintech event, San Francisco, 1 November

Oct 28 2016

K&L Gates will be co-hosting an event with the Silicon Vikings in San Francisco on Tuesday November 1st. This will be a panel session with presenting companies including: Checkbook, bitwage, StratiFi and Qwil. An event not to be missed.

The panel will include:

Sanjiv Das, Professor of Finance, Santa Clara University
Jacob Sisk, VP Payments & Data Science, CapitalOne
Tyler He, Business Development, Tencent
Moderator & Event Chair: Shikhar Das, Assistera

Details of the event:

Date/time: Tuesday, November 1st, 6.00 pm – 8.30 pm
Location: K&L Gates, 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94103 (google maps)
Register: Click here for more details or to register to attend

For any queries, please contact K&L Gates partner, Lars Johansson.

A guide to doing FinTech business in the U.S. and Germany

Oct 28 2016

“Getting the Deal Through” is a publication that provides international expert analysis in key areas of law, practice and regulation for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners, and company directors and officers.

The inaugural edition of Fintech serves as a resource to help fintech entrepreneurs and their advisers and investors around the world navigate the often complex key legal and regulatory issues on which we are most often asked to advise. Two of the chapters were authored by K&L Gates lawyers.

The Germany chapter is authored by Dr. Hilger von Livonius, Dr. Friederike Gräfin von Brühl and Dr. Thomas Nietsch.

The United States chapter is authored by Judith Rinearson, Robert Zinn, Anthony Nolan, C. Todd Gibson and Andrew Reibman.

To read this publication, click here.

Blockchain’s Smart Contract Solution Wins EY Startup Challenge

Oct 28 2016

By Susan P. Altman

The world is abuzz with news about blockchain development and technology lawyers need to understand the implications. The rise of smart contracts, or automated implementation of portions of real-life contracts by transferring assets between parties, is one of those interesting implications. A smart contract is neither smart, nor a contract, but can be regarded by lawyers as a technological solution that automates some transfer between parties to a contract, such as payment or release of information, upon the occurrence of a triggering event. At its most basic, a smart contract consists of fixed program code, a storage file and an account.

Recent news about a startup company making headway with smart contract technology development is worth noting. Adjoint, Inc., based in Boston, is trying to market a solution where financial transactions are automated through smart contracts and work with many proprietary interfaces. The solution provides a consensus protocol (a protocol used in blockchain to get all the processes to agree on a specific value for verification) that allows companies to deploy and analyze a network of smart contracts on top of a mathematically verified distributed and encrypted ledgers.

Are robo-advisers required to act in their clients best interests?

Oct 24 2016

By Jim Bulling and Michelle Chasser

In Australia, robo-advisers providing personal financial product advice must comply with the statutory fiduciary duty to act in the client’s best interests. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has made it clear that the duty is technology neutral and applies to robo-advisers as well as traditional advisers. ASIC also clearly stated its position that robo-advisers are able to comply with the duty (Regulatory Guide 255)

Robo-advisers in the US do not currently have the same clarity as their Australian counterparts. US advisors are subject to fiduciary duties from a number of sources depending on the type of advice given and the type of adviser giving it. The Massachusetts Securities Division (MSD) has stated that robo-advisers and traditional advisers have the same fiduciary duty. However, MSD and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have raised questions over robo-advisers’ ability to comply with the duty and hold themselves out to be fiduciaries. MSD is particularly concerned that from its research it appeared to be usual for robo-advisers not to perform any significant due diligence on their client’s circumstances which is needed to make appropriate investment decisions. The SEC is currently working on a fiduciary rule for advisers with plans to release the proposal in April 2017.

In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has developed the Principles for Businesses (PRIN) which includes the requirement to pay due regard to the interests of customers and treat them fairly. The FCA has stated that the PRIN applies to all regulated firms including robo-advisers. The FCA established an Advice Unit to provide particular guidance to robo-advisers in June 2016.

CFPB Finalizes Much-Anticipated Prepaid Account Rule

Oct 17 2016

By Eric A. Love, Linda C. Odom and Judith Rinearson

On October 5, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued its much-anticipated Final Rule for prepaid accounts under the implementing regulations for the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth In Lending Act (Regulation Z). The Final Rule is effective on October 1, 2017 and governs “prepaid accounts” including:*

general purpose reloadable cards
mobile wallets and certain other electronic prepaid accounts
peer-to-peer payment products
student financial aid disbursement cards
tax refund cards
payroll cards
government benefit cards

Blockchain–powered contract management and outsourcing

Sep 28 2016

By Susan P. Altman

Add outsourcing services to the long list of industries that face disruption directly attributable to blockchain, which list already includes financial services, supply chains, IoT, risk management, digital rights management and healthcare. It is well-known that blockchain technology, that is, technology enabling distributed ledgers with continuously maintained and verified blocks of records, promises huge savings and disruption in the financial services industry. IBM has now partnered with the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (BTMU) to apply blockchain technology to the design, management and execution of contracts between businesses. IBM and BTMU are piloting a blockchain project to test its usefulness in automating business transactions for which one party has contracted with the other to provide goods or services. Initially, the technology will be used to monitor delivery and usage of equipment with a sensor that embeds information into the blockchain. The information will then automate invoicing and payment processes between the two companies.

Of especial interest to outsourcing lawyers is the announcement that IBM and BTMU will develop smart contracts on a blockchain to improve the efficiency and accountability of service level agreements in multi-party business interactions. It appears the technology is intended to be used in the increasingly common and complex environment of multi-party, multi-vendor services. Lawyers can expect to see more robust service level agreements with service providers within that complex environment, certainly in terms of accountability. However, it remains true that service levels are only as valuable as the relevancy of what is being measured. And that is still a decision that, for now, requires human input.

FinTech hub ecosystems

Sep 28 2016

By Jonathan Lawrence

A recent EY study looks at how the UK FinTech ecosystem compares to that of California, New York, Germany, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia based on their status as FinTech hubs. The report considers four attributes in each region:

Talent (availability and pipeline)
Capital (seed, growth and listed)
Policy (regulatory regimes, government programmes and taxation policy)
Demand (consumer, corporate and financial institution)

The analysis was commissioned by the UK Government to inform policy and support the sector. It also includes case studies on Israel and China.

The study gives extremely interesting comparative data across the regions and provides recommendations for the UK Government based on the experience in other countries.

To support payments innovation, avoid unnecessary regulation

Sep 12 2016

By John R. Gardner

The rapid growth of new payment system innovation in recent years in many ways mirrors similar growth in the credit card industry in the 1950s and 1960s. A review of the development of the credit card industry leading up to the significant amendments to the Truth in Lending Act in 1970, and the ultimate effect of the legislation when viewed against the concerns voiced by Congress, arguably demonstrate that the legislation was unnecessary, inefficient and anticompetitive. Accordingly, legislatures and regulators should take a cautious approach to enacting restrictions proposed in the name of consumer protection. To avoid the mistakes of the past, legislatures and regulators should carefully consider how such measures might limit competition and innovation, whether such measures would truly result in a benefit to consumers, and whether there are any less restrictive measures that would result in equivalent consumer protection.

You can read my full article here.

Who bears the risk? Federal Court holds that a purchaser of unsecured consumer loans is the “true lender”

Sep 09 2016

By Irene C. Freidel and David D. Christensen

A California federal court has held that the purchaser of consumer loans is the “true lender” and thus subject to state usury laws, even though a separate entity funded and closed the loans in its own name. The recent decision, however, is another reminder that US state and federal regulators, as well as plaintiffs’ attorneys, may be able to pierce these partnerships where the financial institution funding and closing the loan does not bear substantial risk on those loans.

Tag:US