Photo of Carlin McCrory

Carlin McCrory

Subscribe to Carlin McCrory's Posts

A seasoned regulatory and compliance attorney, Carlin brings extensive experience representing financial institutions, fintechs, lenders, payment processors, neobanks, virtual currency companies, and mortgage servicers.

Follow:Read more about Carlin McCroryCarlin's Linkedin Profile

On October 17, the Clearing House Association, LLC (Association) and National Automated Clearing House Association (Nacha) joined forces to submit an amicus brief in support of a credit union held liable by a district court for a fraud perpetrated by an outside party on the sender of a wire. According to the amici, the district court wrongly held the credit union which banked the beneficiary of the wire responsible for the sender’s losses, even though it had no relationship with the sender. The case, Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union, on appeal before the Fourth Circuit, challenges the district court ruling. The case deals with the liability scheme found in Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). According to the amici, under the UCC the disappointed originator (the plaintiff) has recourse against the person paid (its own bank), but not against the bank that paid the beneficiary of the wire, with whom the sender has no relationship. The amici argue that “[t]he district court’s opinion muddles these rules, uncaps banks’ liability, and threatens the efficiency of all U.S. funds-transfer systems — not just the ACH networks — to the detriment of every economic participant, down to the consumer.”

On August 1, the two major national credit union trade associations — the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) and the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) — announced plans to merge and create a new organization called America’s Credit Unions. The goal of the merger would be to form a single credit union trade group “to serve credit unions more efficiently and effectively” through “one strong and united voice.”

On September 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released an issue spotlight focusing on the role that mobile device operating systems play in determining consumer’s payment options. According to the CFPB, “[g]iven the continued shift toward the use of contactless payments on mobile devices like smartphones and wearables, there is now readily available technology for consumers to securely make [point-of-sale (POS)] payments through different apps and services … Any restrictions imposed by the dominant operating systems … will have an outsized effect on access to payments systems and may hinder the development of a truly open ecosystem.”

On August 18, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law A4284, which prohibits sellers from imposing certain surcharges for credit card transactions. Specifically, the law prohibits sellers from charging more than what they pay to process credit card transactions. The law also requires sellers to disclose and post notices of the surcharge prior to the consumer incurring the charge.

On August 1, Maryland’s Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) issued guidance to “provide clarity on how [the OFR] views Earned Wage Access [EWA] products and to describe the requirements entities offering these products must adhere to.” Unfortunately, the guidance largely fails to deliver the promised clarity.

In this episode of Payments Pros, Carlin McCrory welcomes Stout’s Disputes, Compliance, and Investigations Managing Director Terri Sands to discuss the evolvement in payments and the launch of FedNow.

In this episode of The Crypto Exchange, Troutman Pepper Partner Ethan Ostroff welcomes his colleagues Carlin McCrory and Addison Morgan to discuss a recent case in the Southern District of New York that has been in the news, Rider v. Uphold HQ. In Rider, the court concluded that virtual currency platform operators may be subject to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E.

On July 7, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB 103 into law, which prohibits any person from offering earned wage access (EWA) services without registering with the Division of Finance and paying an annual $1,000 fee. The law also requires EWA providers to develop procedures for dealing with consumer questions and complaints, specifies notices required to be given to consumers, and regulates the types of fees that may be charged and the manner in which repayments may be pursued. The law further specifies requirements should the EWA provider solicit, charge, or receive tips or gratuities from consumers. Like Nevada, discussed here, the law specifies that EWA products are not loans or money transmissions under Missouri law. In March 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation took the opposite position with respect to EWA products and proposed new regulations under the California Financing Law that would update the definition of loan to include EWA products, except for those offered by employers.