Photo of Mary C. Zinsner

Mary C. Zinsner

Subscribe to Mary C. Zinsner's Posts

Mary focuses her practice on litigation and strategy in lender liability, check and bank operation, class action, consumer finance, fiduciary matters, and creditor’s rights disputes. While Mary litigates extensively in the federal and state trial and appellate courts in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, she represents banking clients in cases of all sizes nationwide.

Follow:Read more about Mary C. ZinsnerMary's Linkedin Profile

Business email compromise (BEC) and other third-party fraud inducing funds transfers have generated a wave of litigation against banks: not just those where victims hold accounts, but also against the financial institutions where the funds were transferred, even when the victim is not a customer. A threshold question often arises as to whether the beneficiary bank receiving the funds via a wire transfer owes a noncustomer plaintiff any duty of care at all. Most courts uniformly hold that banks owe no duty of care to noncustomers. But in 2024, in Elkin Valley Baptist Church,the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania went against the weight of authority and answered that question in plaintiffs’ favor.

On September 2, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) issued a joint statement clarifying the confidentiality requirements related to Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), particularly when banks communicate with customers regarding potentially fraudulent transactions, other suspicious activity, or account closures. The statement applies to all banks, including community banks.

On July 8, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Diana, delivering a decisive and long-awaited victory for debt buyers operating in New Jersey. The court’s ruling — affirming the dismissal of a putative class action brought by a borrower seeking to void his credit card debt — definitively closes the door on a theory of liability that has dogged the debt-buying industry in New Jersey for years.

In a decision of first impression, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo, defined what “evident partiality” means under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act (VUAA). The court held that a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award must show that a reasonable person, knowing all relevant facts, would conclude the arbitrator’s conduct signifies obvious bias against that party. Applying this standard, the court affirmed confirmation of a FINRA arbitration award and declined to vacate based on an arbitrator’s undisclosed, attenuated prior connections to one side.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Locke Partners Heryka Knoespel and Mary Zinsner for a year-in-review and look-ahead tour through the sometimes wild world of UCC and banking litigation. From check cashers and sovereign citizens to elder financial exploitation, the panel unpacks the major trends banks faced in 2025, including a steady stream of retail deposit disputes and increasingly inventive plaintiff theories to recover funds — often running headlong into the UCC’s traditional allocation of risk.

Key point: Courts are concluding that not all data breaches should result in a lawsuit. Businesses need to consider causation and damages when responding to an incident and take steps to determine if there is no evidence of harm or traceability including on a class wide basis.

In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court reversed a district court’s ruling and compelled arbitration in the case of Massel v. Successfulmatch.com dba Millionaire Match. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff consumer received reasonably conspicuous notice of the Service Agreement (containing the arbitration clause), to which the plaintiff assented by checking the box required for account creation and continued use of the website.

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s state law claims against a federal credit union on federal preemption grounds. The putative class action plaintiff’s claims challenged the credit union’s $15 dollar returned-check fee under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), arguing it was an “unfair” and “unlawful” business practice, especially since the check the plaintiff deposited was declined without any funds being made available to him. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s state law unfair competition claim was preempted by 12 C.F.R. § 701.35, which states expressly that state laws regulating bank fees do not apply to federal credit unions.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by veteran litigators and Troutman Pepper Locke Partners Mary Zinsner and Heryka Knoespel to dissect a groundbreaking Fourth Circuit decision on bank liability in wire transfer fraud cases. The ruling clarifies the actual knowledge standard under the Uniform Commercial Code, rejecting negligence-based liability and safeguarding the speed and efficiency of the banking system. Discover how this decision impacts future litigation and the banking industry’s approach to fraud prevention.