US – Page 11 – FinTech and Blockchain Law Watch

Blockchain’s Smart Contract Solution Wins EY Startup Challenge

Oct 28 2016

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.

U.S. Banking regulators issue a “Joint Fact Sheet on Foreign Correspondent Banking”: Is this a response to global fears of US “DeRisking”? And if so, does it go far enough?

Sep 07 2016

By Judith Rinearson

This summer, “de-risking” has become a hot topic. De-risking is the term used to describe the process many banks have taken to cancel bank accounts and correspondent banking relationships with customers whom they deem to be too risky, or not worth the cost of ensuring compliance. Losing a bank account relationship can be devastating for small businesses and many emerging payments companies have found it increasingly difficult to obtain banking service due to perceptions that providing banking services for “fintechs,” blockchain companies and other innovative payments companies would be “high risk”.

The concerns about derisking are not limited to its impact on small businesses; it has also impacted on small countries. IMF President Christine LaGarde noted in July 2016 that “regulators in key financial centers need to clarify regulatory expectations …and global banks need to avoid knee-jerk reactions and find sensible ways to reduce their costs.”

The politicization of encryption: party “platforms” or “platitudes”?

Sep 01 2016

By Tyler Kirk

In the United States, the political stage is set for what may turn out to be one of the most infamous presidential elections in America’s history. As noted in an earlier blog post, the regulation of encryption by U.S. legislators and regulatory agencies may have a damaging impact on FinTech, and in particular, on the adoption of blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies. In this post, we look at the relevant Party Platforms to learn what, if anything, they say about encryption.

Proposed FDIC guidance on marketplace lending could have far reaching impact on industry

Aug 31 2016

By Sean Mahoney

Following up on its recent Supervisory Insights article on marketplace lending and Advisory on Effective Risk Management Practices for Purchased Loans and Purchased Loan Participations, the FDIC on July 31, 2016 released its proposed Examination Guidance for Third-Party Lending. If nothing else, this series of recent developments demonstrates the FDIC’s concern with the role of banks in marketplace lending. Unlike the prior two releases, the July proposed guidance is subject to public comment, with a comment period expiring October 27, 2016.

All three issuances share a common set of fundamental concerns. These include concerns that (a) a bank may rely on a marketplace lending platform to an unjustified extent; (b) the marketplace lending activity may not fit within a bank’s corporate strategy; (c) that lending through a marketplace platform may not be consistent with the bank’s underwriting standards; (d) that the bank may not adequately assure that the activity is being conducted in accordance with applicable law; and (e) that the bank may not otherwise adequately manage risks inherent in the activity. The Proposed Guidance goes a few steps further by requiring that banks that engage in marketplace lending activities have specific, detailed policies and procedures addressing a set of prescribed parameters. Further the Proposed Guidance would mandate that contracts between a bank and marketplace lending platform provide the bank with, among other things, (i) the right to mandate that the platform adopt policies and procedures governing any activity outsourced to the platform, and (ii) rights to performance data, audits and funding information.

While the Proposed Guidance will only apply to state-chartered, FDIC-insured banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System, it could have far-reaching effects given the increased prevalence of state-chartered banks of all types in marketplace lending. Moreover, the Proposed Guidance may strain the tension between financial innovation and comprehensive regulatory oversight inherent in much of FinTech.

Tag:US